# Tory By-Election Overspending



## killer b (Feb 12, 2016)

Could anything exciting come of this, or will it just be a fine or something?

Conservative election expenses: the timeline


----------



## brogdale (Feb 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> Could anything exciting come of this, or will it just be a fine or something?
> 
> Conservative election expenses: the timeline


Electoral commission not that bothered, OB won't touch it, statute of limitation expired and the oppo are all at it anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> Could anything exciting come of this, or will it just be a fine or something?
> 
> Conservative election expenses: the timeline


yes. but probably not.


----------



## killer b (Feb 12, 2016)

what are the exciting things that could occur, but probably won't?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> what are the exciting things that could occur, but probably won't?


a huge scandal leading to ritual suicide in the upper echelons of the tory party


----------



## brogdale (Feb 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> what are the exciting things that could occur, but probably won't?


The only one with any legs is Fanet South; that's within the 12 month limitation...obviously.
One Craig Mackinlay who took time out from battling Farage to write to all 'wavering' UKIP curious voters in Croydon central asking them to vote Tory. In the letter he gave the impression he was UKIP deputy leader, and made no mention of his status as a vermin candidate.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 12, 2016)

Hmmm...I stand (potentially) corrected.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 4, 2016)

I've posted this on the PCC thread but it can't hurt to post it here too. This is from last night's C4 News.


As yet, the BBC has said next to nothing about this. Crick appeared on The Daily Brilllo in February to talk about it but it doesn't appear in any of the news bulletins.

ETA: Here's Crick on The Daily Politics talking about the election expenses scandal.


----------



## killer b (May 4, 2016)

I've seen lots of noise among the type of people who share Canary articles on facebook but little else, so I've been assuming it'll come to nothing. Keeping half an eye on it though...


----------



## killer b (May 4, 2016)

that said, here's the Mirror 

24 Tories and how they 'broke General Election spending rules'


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2016)

Man alive! The integrity drips from Green...


----------



## J Ed (May 4, 2016)

He looks nervous about it


----------



## nino_savatte (May 5, 2016)

According to Zelo Street, it was Mark Clarke who turned informant and exposed Tory election overspends. 


> That was not enough to close out the inevitable appearance of Channel 4 News’ Michael Crick later in the day, who had previously been focusing mainly on Shapps’ co-chairman Andrew Feldman. And why Crick had been doing this became crystal clear as what had been suspected for some time was finally admitted: Crick’s source was none other than disgraced ex-Tory activist Mark Clarke, now expelled from the party for life.
> 
> This is not a good look for Crick, whose reputation for fearless and non-partisan reporting has now been linked to the person who figures so prominently in the Tory Party’s continuing bullying scandal, following the death of young activist Elliott Johnson. It gets worse: Clarke had already been identified by this blog as being a source for two other media outlets, neither of which enjoys the status of Channel 4 News.
> Zelo Street: Channel 4 Informant Was Mark Clarke




Beware of a Clarke scorned, eh? But what about Michael Crick?


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> According to Zelo Street, it was Mark Clarke who turned informant and exposed Tory election overspends.
> 
> 
> 
> Beware of a Clarke scorned, eh? But what about Michael Crick?


tbh I've got no problem with journos exploiting the vermin that turn on each other.


----------



## 1%er (May 5, 2016)

I heard Michael Crick talking about this on the radio yesterday, he was saying there was a meeting between 14 police forces, the CPS and the electoral commission to decide if they should apply to the court for a 12 month extension. It seemed that the police were saying they haven't had all the information from the electoral commission also that each police force would have to apply separately. One interesting comment that came up was could there be a case for a "conspiracy charge" as it clearly covers a number of areas and was planed to cover a number of areas.

Personally I think it will be fudged and end up with no action, although it would be interesting if there was a case.


----------



## JimW (May 6, 2016)

Police now investigating allegations of Tory fraud by overspending in Gloucestershire apparently. That's all that's reported so far, wonder if that's here in Stroud as we're the obvious marginal.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2016)

JimW said:


> Police now investigating allegations of Tory fraud by overspending in Gloucestershire apparently. That's all that's reported so far, wonder if that's here in Stroud as we're the obvious marginal.


perfect place to pull shennanigans as well, wicker man territory with money


----------



## elbows (May 6, 2016)

Seven forces investigating according to the BBC. I've only seen it on their live election coverage feed so that link will have to do for now.

http://bbc.in/26ZUDU4



> At least seven police forces are investigating whether election expenses for Conservative MPs were filed illegally after the 2015 General Election. Three of those have told the BBC they are asking for an extension on the time limit of their investigations (otherwise these would expire one year after the election expenses were filed).
> 
> Beyond the seven forces, at least four others are considering what to do next or seeking further information.
> 
> The allegations centre on the Conservative Party's "battle buses" of activists that targeted marginal seats. The party did not file the hotel costs of the activists. It says this was an administrative error and should have been entered in the national returns. But the police forces are looking at whether these costs should have been filed by the MPs' agents in their local expenses. Failing to file correct expenses is a criminal offence.


----------



## treelover (May 6, 2016)

> Daniel Sandford *✔* ‎@BBCDanielS
> 
> 
> Four further forces either considering their next steps, or waiting for more information - Wiltshire, Met, Kent Police and Nottinghamshire.
> ...


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2016)

Devon and Cornwall's shiny new PCC is herself being investigated by police on suspicion of filing fraudulent election expenses claims on behalf of the tory MP for Torbay.

Labour MP: New Devon & Cornwall PCC "should not take oath"


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2016)

Dedicated C4News blog...

Election Expenses


----------



## Dogsauce (May 11, 2016)

I bet the tories/press are searching very very hard at the moment for anything that implicates Labour in the same kind of activity.  They only need one event (or something that sounds like a similar event) to mount the '_they're all at it'_ defence and portray it as equal guilt and not something that conferred an advantage to one particular party.  They won't go down for this or have to rerun anything.  Not in the public interest.


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2016)

Lol stuff....

Election expenses: Alison Hernandez sworn in


----------



## stethoscope (May 11, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Lol stuff....
> 
> Election expenses: Alison Hernandez sworn in



Good grief!


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 11, 2016)

hardly surprising though


----------



## stethoscope (May 12, 2016)

Conservatives taken to court over campaign spending details



			
				Gruaniad said:
			
		

> The Conservative party is being taken to court by the election watchdog amid claims that it breached spending rules.
> 
> The Electoral Commission has applied to the high court for a document and information disclosure order after party chiefs failed to provide requested details.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Conservatives taken to court over campaign spending details


It worked. The fuckers coughed up the documents this pm...apparently.
Speaks volumes that it needed court to do it. Scum.


----------



## J Ed (May 12, 2016)

Even if we are being wildly optimistic is there any chance whatsoever of by-elections rather than just fines and slaps on wrists?


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Even if we are being wildly optimistic is there any chance whatsoever of by-elections rather than just fines and slaps on wrists?


Well imprisonment would necessitate by-elections!


----------



## nino_savatte (May 12, 2016)

Tories withheld key documents from election fraud investigation, the Electoral Commission claims.


> The Conservative Party withheld key documents from an investigation into possible electoral fraud by the party, the elections watchdog has revealed.
> 
> The Electoral Commission on Thursday applied for a High Court order to force the Tories to hand over the missing papers – which it says would help shed light on whether the party broke spending rules in key marginal seats at the general election.
> Tories withheld key documents from election fraud investigation, Electoral Commission says



No surprises there, then.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 12, 2016)

Seems like the tories may have cheated Mr Farage out of a seat, I'm sure he'll brush it aside though...


----------



## J Ed (May 12, 2016)

This is a good summary







Comes from Éoin (@LabourEoin) on Twitter btw


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2016)

You need to be convicted and jailed for a period over 12 months to lose your seat i believe.

edit: eoin has an awful reputation for getting simple facts wrong btw Not saying he has here, but always double-check anything he posts.


----------



## JimW (May 12, 2016)

How I would laugh to see Neil Carmichael being frog-marched to the cells.


----------



## weltweit (May 12, 2016)

Are they only investigating where a tory won?


----------



## Sue (May 12, 2016)

JimW said:


> How I would laugh to see Neil Carmichael being frog-marched to the cells.



TBF, I'm not fussy -- any/all of them would make me laugh.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Are they only investigating where a tory won?


I suspect it's more likely they're investigating in these cases where they have uncovered or been provided with substantive evidence rather than targeting seats where the tories were victorious. I doubt they just thought to themselves - all the various forces - to have a look at only tory election expenses.


----------



## Bingo (May 12, 2016)

Is there a list of the relevant constituencies anywhere?


----------



## JimW (May 12, 2016)

Bingo said:


> Is there a list of the relevant constituencies anywhere?


I think they're still be coy and we only know which forces are investigating then they're guessing from the marginals in those areas, but I could be wrong there.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 12, 2016)

I know two of them off the top of my head. Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) and Anna Soubry (Broxtowe).


----------



## weltweit (May 12, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I know two of them off the top of my head. Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) and Anna Soubry (Broxtowe).


Anna Soubry huh, couldn't happen to a nicer person !


----------



## Bingo (May 12, 2016)

Aha they're all on here Election Expenses exposed


----------



## nino_savatte (May 12, 2016)

The Mirror had a list of 25 on 1 March. I was reading somewhere that the actual number is 33.
24 Tories and how they 'broke General Election spending rules'


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I suspect it's more likely they're investigating in these cases where they have uncovered or been provided with substantive evidence rather than targeting seats where the tories were victorious. I doubt they just thought to themselves - all the various forces - to have a look at only tory election expenses.


It would seem, on the face of it, that any candidate that received a campaigning visit from the battle-bus within the short campaign might well have broken the law. I think the OB are only responding to evidence gathered by Crick and given to the Electoral commission or from direct complaints from constituents.

In my local case the Croydon Central MP Gavin Barwell is the subject of an investigation as a result of a complaint from a former NF candidate. Rather takes the fun out it, locally.


----------



## Bingo (May 12, 2016)

Tory MP Stuart Andrew for Pudsey, Horsforth & Aireborough is my local one in Leeds, where they won this swing seat...


----------



## nino_savatte (May 12, 2016)

That's the same battle bus that was run by the chappie on the left and signed off by the chappie on the right.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> That's the same battle bus that was run by the chappie on the left and signed off by the chappie on the right.


FS Nino!

Looks like the vermin are very concerned below the surface...


----------



## nino_savatte (May 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> FS Nino!
> 
> Looks like the vermin are very concerned below the surface...


----------



## weltweit (May 12, 2016)

Choosing the scapegoat, perhaps ..


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Choosing the scapegoat, perhaps ..


Desperately finding out what Crick's got hold of and shredding the rest.


----------



## J Ed (May 12, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> That's the same battle bus that was run by the chappie on the left and signed off by the chappie on the right.



The one on the left is Clarke, who bullied another Tory activist to suicide.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The one on the left is Clarke, who bullied another Tory activist to suicide.


I know. So who's the one on the right? Is it a) Michael Green b) Sebastian Fox or c) Grant Shapps?


----------



## Duncan2 (May 12, 2016)

Bingo said:


> Aha they're all on here Election Expenses exposed


I was inclined to think that this was rather grasping at straws-a storm in a teacup as Hernandez claimed but I now see what Crick has been on about.The overspends in so many cases being so similar there has to have been a degree of pre-meditation involved.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> I was inclined to think that this was rather grasping at straws-a storm in a teacup as Hernandez claimed but I now see what Crick has been on about.The overspends in so many cases being so similar there has to have been a degree of pre-meditation involved.


Or conspiracy to commit electoral fraud as we might call it?


----------



## nino_savatte (May 12, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> I was inclined to think that this was rather grasping at straws-a storm in a teacup as Hernandez claimed but I now see what Crick has been on about.The overspends in so many cases being so similar there has to have been a degree of pre-meditation involved.


Hernandez is up to her neck in it.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Hernandez is up to her neck in it.


The only surprise is that D&C Police didn't call on SYP to conduct the investigation.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The only surprise is that D&C Police didn't call on SYP to conduct the investigation.


Innit


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2016)

One expense which isn't mentioned in the C4 coverage or the infographic above is the cost of expenses of US Republicans who were used in several marginal constituencies. What else is there that hasn't come out yet on this?


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The one on the left is Clarke, who bullied another Tory activist to suicide.


And also the main source of the C4 investigation. A bully scorned.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2016)

The second the tories 'find' evidence/rumours to suggest other parties were also involved in rule-breaking the story will die, with friendly media playing up the misdeeds of other parties even if trivial in comparison. It's only a story while there's a chance that election results could be annulled (I don't know if that's a possible outcome?)


----------



## Pickman's model (May 13, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> The second the tories 'find' evidence/rumours to suggest other parties were also involved in rule-breaking the story will die, with friendly media playing up the misdeeds of other parties even if trivial in comparison. It's only a story while there's a chance that election results could be annulled (I don't know if that's a possible outcome?)


what it said on the today programme was that if found guilty people would be barred from holding office for five years, so while the result would not be *annulled* there would be new elections as the person would have to resign.


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> what it said on the today programme was that if found guilty people would be barred from holding office for five years, so while the result would not be *annulled* there would be new elections as the person would have to resign.



We'd also only need another party to win 11 of 33 elections, in theory...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> We'd also only need another party to win 11 of 33 elections, in theory...


oh how lovely that would be to see hammy cameron buggered at the polls.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2016)

I think UKIP rather than Labour would rise to the challenge if there were by-elections, they'd get talked up into being viable challengers the way the lib dems used to be, although post-referendum they could be yesterday's news (or could be emboldened even from defeat like the SNP was).


----------



## Pickman's model (May 13, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> I think UKIP rather than Labour would rise to the challenge if there were by-elections, they'd get talked up into being viable challengers the way the lib dems used to be, although post-referendum they could be yesterday's news (or could be emboldened even from defeat like the SNP was).


while you may think that i doubt it is in fact the case. i think they (ukip) have neither the candidates nor the wherewithal for a load of by-elections atm.


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> I think UKIP rather than Labour would rise to the challenge if there were by-elections, they'd get talked up into being viable challengers the way the lib dems used to be, although post-referendum they could be yesterday's news (or could be emboldened even from defeat like the SNP was).



Well it depends on the seat, doesn't it? A lot are UKIP-Tory and Lib Dem-Tory marginals but there are also Tory-Labour marginals like Lincoln, Dudley South and Nuneaton


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2016)

lol

Private Eye


----------



## likesfish (May 13, 2016)

One or two over the limit and only just or real evidence that everyone was doing it one thing.

But this looks like a concerted effort to cheat.


----------



## stethoscope (May 13, 2016)

Police asked to investigate Conservative election letters - BBC News


----------



## discokermit (May 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> And also the main source of the C4 investigation. A bully scorned.


so, if clarke knew that the tories were fiddling the expenses, then all those above him must have known. they are gonna struggle to get out of this. i hope.


----------



## Teaboy (May 13, 2016)

Am I right to be very confident that this will all amount to nothing?  Just a big misunderstanding and a few numbers entered into the wrong spreadsheet. Nothing to see here etc...


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2016)




----------



## killer b (May 13, 2016)

doesn't seem to have worked J Ed


----------



## stethoscope (May 13, 2016)

Try reloading the page killer. Anyway, it says.. 

"Breaking: West Midlands police becomes the 13th police force to announce it is now investigating Tory Election Fraud"


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> doesn't seem to have worked J Ed



OK, I was just embedding a tweet that showed that West Midlands police had started investigations


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2016)

Contemptuous, entitled fuckers. Rules are for the little people.

All the senior Tories will be badgering Crosby for another dead cat before this gets too much momentum. Maybe we need to hear more about Labour's 'racism'?


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2016)

I think they're letting the racism thing drop for now, as they've been so totally exposed themselves over Suliman Gani.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> lol
> 
> Private Eye


Gavlar "Arab girls" Barwell.
It's what I got twitter blocked for.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2016)

Soubry's collar being felt now.
She sounds a little desperate on twitter...



lol


----------



## stethoscope (May 13, 2016)

Missed opportunity for a 'u ok hun'.


----------



## gosub (May 13, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Missed opportunity for a 'u ok hun'.


or a full michael jackson rendition


----------



## Pickman's model (May 13, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Missed opportunity for a 'u ok hun'.


Only if it was in ibrox


----------



## nino_savatte (May 14, 2016)

From the FT.


> Conservatives are fearful that a simmering row over alleged breaches of election spending rules by up to 30 MPs at the last election could lead to some losing their seats or even being sent to jail.
> 
> The involvement of the police has elevated an apparently technical issue over whether the Tories correctly recorded their election expenses into a matter of great concern among the parliamentary party.
> 
> ...



Diddums.


----------



## two sheds (May 14, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> From the FT.
> 
> 
> Diddums.



"an apparently technical issue" 

"I'm sorry officer, but your involvement has turned an apparently technical issue of my having lifted those albums from the shop (I was only mis-buying in the sense of pensions "mis-selling") into a potentially criminal offense. "


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

Interesting 'Speccie' piece from back in the thick of the campaign. Gives a clear explanation of why the vermin were compelled to bus true believers around from marginal to marginal...



> _Membership of the Conservative Party has halved under David Cameron, leaving him with fewer activists to help him in this election than were available to any of his modern predecessors. So how to fight a Labour Party that has not suffered from the same hollowing out? One answer is to bus in activists, which is being done via Roadtrip2015 — a traveling ensemble of young volunteers who move around the country en mass for a day of campaigning in a key seat_.


...and, crucially...



> _Volunteers will spend eight to nine hours a day campaigning for five days. To join this merry brigade, volunteers are asked to pay £50 (£25 for students) to show they are serious and won’t drop out. In return, *CCHQ will be paying for accommodation and sustenance during their five days on the road. *Another two coaches are being added to the Battlebus 2015 operation in the final week of the campaign._


----------



## two sheds (May 14, 2016)

I could do that


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I could do that



I'm assuming that they'd check to see if you were actually a party member before plying you with booze & grub for a week!


----------



## two sheds (May 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I'm assuming that they'd check to see if you were actually a party member before plying you with booze & grub for a week!



I couldn't do that


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> "an apparently technical issue"
> 
> "I'm sorry officer, but your involvement has turned an apparently technical issue of my having lifted those albums from the shop (I was only mis-buying in the sense of pensions "mis-selling") into a potentially criminal offense. "



"No if no buts, we are on to you", if it was benefit issues there would no 'technicalities' allowed.


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Interesting 'Speccie' piece from back in the thick of the campaign. Gives a clear explanation of why the vermin were compelled to bus true believers around from marginal to marginal...
> 
> ​...and, crucially...
> 
> ​



So Clarke was even more valuable to the Tory Party than realised, though one suspects its advertising spend was more central.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

Soubry is continuing her 'defence' on twitter...quite bizarre!


----------



## stethoscope (May 14, 2016)

She's started again this morning?! She must have tweeted over 20 times in succession last night saying the same thing over and over about the buses being a 'legitimate national spend' and posting pictures of Labour and Lib Dems buses too.

Well, I don't think any parties using 'election buses' are a legitimate national spend when we've got austerity. So fuck off.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> She's started again this morning?! She must have tweeted over 20 times in succession last night saying the same thing over and over about the buses being a 'legitimate national spend' and posting pictures of Labour and Lib Dems buses too.
> 
> Well, I don't think any parties using 'election buses' are a legitimate national spend when we've got austerity. So fuck off.


I can only imagine that she's so rattled that she's lost any perspective/judgement. Can't imagine that her party handlers will be too impressed that, facing potential conviction, she's outlining her 'defence' on twitter.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

Interesting to see what labour/ukip/ld put their head above the parapet. Not many so far...


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting to see what labour/ukip/ld put their head above the parapet. Not many so far...


Wonder why?


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Wonder why?


Yes, a rather telling silence i think.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

Jesus, CCHQ must be pulling their hair out seeing Soubry put out stuff like this...



Very ill-judged.


----------



## stethoscope (May 14, 2016)

_Can you get Anna on the phone?..._


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2016)

their very own Ken Livingstone.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

She's having a shocker.


----------



## two sheds (May 14, 2016)

Also suggests that responsibility went right to the top, surely inconceivable that Cameron didn't know.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Also suggests that responsibility went right to the top, surely inconceivable that Cameron didn't know.


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Also suggests that responsibility went right to the top, surely inconceivable that Cameron didn't know.


I'm afraid it's totally conceivable. Necessary, even.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

Does anyone know if there's any Brexit/Remainarian bias in the cohort of MPs having their collar felt?


----------



## pesh (May 14, 2016)

this is rapidly becoming my favourite thread on urban


----------



## jakethesnake (May 14, 2016)

pesh said:


> this is rapidly becoming my favourite thread on urban


The David Cameron Pig fucking thread was brilliant for a day or so until it became apparent he was going to slime out of it... this thread is a bit of a slower burn but hopefully, ultimately, more fulfilling. I hope some cunt gets jail


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 14, 2016)

Googling previous cases of electoral fraud, it looks like jail sentences are really quite common on conviction. The convictions I found were for ballot-stuffing, rather than expenses offenses, but it does suggest that electoral fraud as a whole is not taken lightly.

Anna Soubry is a barrister, btw, which makes her recent tweets even more baffling.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Also suggests that responsibility went right to the top, surely inconceivable that Cameron didn't know.



Almost all the MPs who were caught out gave the exact same statement to the press. I submitted all my expenses, this other stuff was part of the national campaign and paid for by HQ. Which certainly suggests that there's been some central co-ordination of the fallout management, even if we're to believe that all these people organised all this skullduggery by themselves and that so many of them just happened to organise the same thing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 14, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Am I right to be very confident that this will all amount to nothing?  Just a big misunderstanding and a few numbers entered into the wrong spreadsheet. Nothing to see here etc...



If all the tory MPs who are implicated are found guilty then that's the goverment's majority down the bog. Somehow I don't think that will be allowed to happen. I look forward to seeing what shameless backflippery they employ to get themselves off the hook.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 14, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Anna Soubry is a barrister, btw, which makes her recent tweets even more baffling.


that'll be the arrogance


----------



## DotCommunist (May 14, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> If all the tory MPs who are implicated are found guilty then that's the goverment's majority down the bog. Somehow I don't think that will be allowed to happen. I look forward to seeing what shameless backflippery they employ to get themselves off the hook.


Democracy


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> *Anna Soubry is a barrister, btw*, which makes her recent tweets even more baffling.



Hmmm


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Hmmm



Sorry, speak to me like a child as I'm stuffed full of Piriton today  What's the bolding of my post and the "Hmmm" mean?


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Sorry, speak to me like a child as I'm stuffed full of Piriton today  What's the bolding of my post and the "Hmmm" mean?


That she must have been as good a barrister as she is a politician. (I agree with you)

Sorry to hear of hay-fever...a bastard.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Sorry to hear of hay-fever...a bastard.



Every year, when the cherry trees bloom, it's an odd combination of "Yay, how beautiful the world is" and "Aw no, to the chemists". It settles down to a tolerable level though usually.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

Confirmation that Kent OB are interested in feeling Mackinlay's collar.
Farage will be chipper.


> _Kent police is to apply to the courts for more time to investigate claims that Conservative party activists breached election laws while fighting off a challenge from the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage.
> 
> It is believed to be the 11th force investigating claims that the party has misallocated spending during the 2015 general election campaign._



Loved this quote...


> _...senior Tories admit that the inquiries, sparked by a Channel 4 News investigation, have become a *“significant inconvenience”* for the party in the middle of a divisive and fraught campaign to remain in the EU.[_/QUOTE]


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

Soubry's at it again this afternoon....



Madness.


----------



## Fingers (May 16, 2016)

The Guido Fawkes story seems to be bollocks

Zelo Street


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2016)

Fingers said:


> The Guido Fawkes story seems to be bollocks
> 
> Zelo Street


Have you read that? It's about labour. Your way of telling it sees to suggest that the whole story is that the overspending story is nonsense. Given there not being any talk of Fawkes and claims before.


----------



## Libertad (May 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Have you read that? It's about labour.



The piece is a rebuttal of Staines' claims that "Labour were at it too".


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2016)

Libertad said:


> The piece is a rebuttal of Staines' claims that "Labour were at it too".


I know. Hence my bit about how it appears to make it look like the claims were about the whole thing - given no previous reference to this piece or claims on this thread. It wouldn't hurt to give some info with the link.


----------



## free spirit (May 16, 2016)

are these election returns online or does it need FOI requests to see them? 

Has anyone checked out the facebook advertising spending by central party that was targeting these key constituencies? I remember reading somewhere that they'd spent a shitload of money on those targeted facebook adverts, so there could easily be more money involved in that than in the battle busses etc. If any of the adverts mentioned the candidates name or specified the constituency then they should have gone on the local spending returns.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

free spirit said:


> are these election returns online or does it need FOI requests to see them?
> 
> Has anyone checked out the facebook advertising spending by central party that was targeting these key constituencies? I remember reading somewhere that they'd spent a shitload of money on those targeted facebook adverts, so there could easily be more money involved in that than in the battle busses etc. If any of the adverts mentioned the candidates name or specified the constituency then they should have gone on the local spending returns.


My understanding is that the electoral expenses paperwork are held on behalf of returning officers at town halls etc. and that they can be inspected upon request. I think there is a normal time-frame of 1 year within which this can be done, but that may be different if the expenses are contested/subject of an investigation?


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

free spirit said:


> are these election returns online or does it need FOI requests to see them?
> 
> Has anyone checked out the facebook advertising spending by central party that was targeting these key constituencies? I remember reading somewhere that they'd spent a shitload of money on those targeted facebook adverts, so there could easily be more money involved in that than in the battle busses etc. If any of the adverts mentioned the candidates name or specified the constituency then they should have gone on the local spending returns.



I thought that the idea was that all social media spending was exempted, which allowed the Tories to do so well with it?


----------



## free spirit (May 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> My understanding is that the electoral expenses paperwork are held on behalf of returning officers at town halls etc. and that they can be inspected upon request. I think there is a normal time-frame of 1 year within which this can be done, but that may be different if the expenses are contested/subject of an investigation?


ah, may be a little late then.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

free spirit said:


> ah, may be a little late then.


Can't see why they're not put online, mind. Maybe that'll be one upshot of this little local difficulty for the vermin?


----------



## free spirit (May 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I thought that the idea was that all social media spending was exempted, which allowed the Tories to do so well with it?


if it's general party election material then it goes in the national returns, but if it in some way specified the candidate or constituency and was targeted to those in that area then it should be in the local returns (as I understand it).

The Tories were using this advert as a targeted advert for their target seats, which probably is within the rules if not the spirit of the law when it's only distributed in those target constituencies.







I wonder if they slipped up at all though and got any more specific in any of their adverts.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

My bad.
You can view the bare totals here.
HTH


----------



## free spirit (May 16, 2016)

Personally I think the electoral commission should be looking into the whole issue of targeted facebook adverts, as it's pretty significant if one party is spending £1.2 million on facebook adverts with the vast bulk of that spending targeted at a small number of key constituencies.


----------



## Fingers (May 16, 2016)

Anna Soubry has taken my bait on Twitter.  Now I shall gently troll her.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Anna Soubry has taken my bait on Twitter.  Now I shall gently troll her.


Enjoy whilst you can...IME she soon backs away when she realises she can't bullshit you.


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

I really hope that the actual CCHQ defence will be as lightweight as Soubry's


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I really hope that the actual CCHQ defence will be as lightweight as Soubry's


The problem they face is this...it's stuffed full of evidence that they were campaigning for individual candidates.


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The problem they face is this...it's stuffed full of evidence that they were campaigning for individual candidates.



Hoisted by their own social media petard


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2016)

This looks fun in a country dancing way, i suppose.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Hoisted by their own social media petard


Indeed they are.
Truth is that the electoral expenses system relates to a time when all the major parties had viable local bases of activists, and these days they don't, (particularly the vermin), so they are increasingly compelled to bus around a diminished group of hard-core believers. They all do it, to some extent, but it looks like the vermin's conspiracy to cover-up the facts will be their undoing.


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Indeed they are.
> Truth is that the electoral expenses system relates to a time when all the major parties had viable local bases of activists, and these days they don't, (particularly the vermin), so they are increasingly compelled to bus around a diminished group of hard-core believers. They all do it, to some extent, but it looks like the vermin's conspiracy to cover-up the facts will be their undoing.



It does lead to some great moments though, like during the election London Lib Dem activists seemed to have a bit of a rough time in Sheffield


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This looks fun in a country dancing way, i suppose.
> 
> View attachment 86953


Clarke's 'friend' the Baroness Pidding no less. Rather tellingly known in party circles as 'the Bet Lynch Baroness'.


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This looks fun in a country dancing way, i suppose.
> 
> View attachment 86953



All of the Battle Bus 2020 pics look like the sort of pictures taken of suck ups smiling during 'forced fun' day at work


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> All of the Battle Bus 2020 pics look like the sort of pictures taken of suck ups smiling during 'forced fun' day at work



Almost deserving of a dedicated thread?


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

Oh no, you've got me started now...

This made me laugh...clearly the theme was _come as a cunt.

_


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

fuck their hats


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Almost deserving of a dedicated thread?
> 
> 
> View attachment 86956


God, looks like footlights outing.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Oh no, you've got me started now...
> 
> This made me laugh...clearly the theme was _come as a cunt.
> 
> _



One red trouser? Suspish.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> One red trouser? Suspish.


_Look at his fucking red trousers_


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> One red trouser? Suspish.



Dont posh people wear yellow trousers now, or was that before red?


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Dont posh people wear yellow trousers now, or was that before red?


Mustard old chap.


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Mustard old chap.



I know a way that they can get mustardy trousers without paying all that money!


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2016)

Orange, pink, all the bright colours. Red is a bit out of favour now though  (mainly 'cause of that look at my red trousers site and the mockery that followed)


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

How about a bit of cross-thread confusion?
What chance the referendum being nullified if it produces the 'wrong' answer...on the basis that the vermin never had a legally won mandate?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I know a way that they can get mustardy trousers without paying all that money!


work for dominoes. Thoes slacks hide a multitude of sins.


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> How about a bit of cross-thread confusion?
> What chance the referendum being nullified if it produces the 'wrong' answer...on the basis that the vermin never had a legally won mandate?



I think that a wrong answer will be nullified regardless, basically half the leave people have said so


----------



## free spirit (May 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> How about a bit of cross-thread confusion?
> What chance the referendum being nullified if it produces the 'wrong' answer...on the basis that the vermin never had a legally won mandate?


What chance everything they've done since last may being nullified on the same basis? Kinda like Dallas where we all wake up and find that it's all just been a terrible nightmare.

I assume that's not how it works, but I really wish it was.


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

free spirit said:


> What chance everything they've done since last may being nullified on the same basis? Kinda like Dallas where we all wake up and find that it's all just been a terrible nightmare.
> 
> I assume that's not how it works, but I really wish it was.



Jon Snow lives


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2016)

free spirit said:


> What chance everything they've done since last may being nullified on the same basis? Kinda like Dallas where we all wake up and find that it's all just been a terrible nightmare.
> 
> I assume that's not how it works, but I really wish it was.


Funnily enough, pretty much everything the vermin have tried to enact since last year has been 'nullified' (u-turned) precisely because of their fear of the referendum.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Jon Snow lives


Spoiler


----------



## Whagwan (May 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Oh no, you've got me started now...
> 
> This made me laugh...clearly the theme was _come as a cunt.
> 
> _




No wonder they had problems with the spending declarations if they think 16 pricks equals "100 great men"


----------



## Dogsauce (May 17, 2016)

Hang onto those photos, these are actually people who paid to campaign for the vermin.  Put them in a binder for retention by the post-revolution novel executions committee.


----------



## Libertad (May 17, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Hang onto those photos, these are actually people who paid to campaign for the vermin.  Put them in a binder for retention by the post-revolution novel executions committee.



I read that as "Put them in a blender". *Serving suggestion only.*


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2016)

Libertad said:


> I read that as "Put them in a blender". *Serving suggestion only.*


industrial mincer more traditional


----------



## brogdale (May 22, 2016)

From Lab & all that...but even so....


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> From Lab & all that...but even so....




Problem is, Eoin isn't particularly credible - more credulous - as he often gets the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## brogdale (May 22, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Problem is, Eoin isn't particularly credible - more credulous - as he often gets the wrong end of the stick.


Quite possibly, but the notion is quite credible given the circumstances the vermin find themselves in!


----------



## J Ed (May 22, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Problem is, Eoin isn't particularly credible - more credulous - as he often gets the wrong end of the stick.



I trust what you and ba have said about him but he's been right about this all along so far, so we shall see...


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Quite possibly, but the notion is quite credible given the circumstances the vermin find themselves in!





J Ed said:


> I trust what you and ba have said about him but he's been right about this all along so far, so we shall see...



I'll be as happy as Larry of he's right. It's always a good sight, seeing Tories kebab themselves!


----------



## J Ed (May 22, 2016)

Suppose this is it


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Suppose this is it



police scotland not up to the job i suppose


----------



## ohmyliver (May 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Suppose this is it



Apparently bigger than that


----------



## brogdale (May 22, 2016)

Maybe they've found a tory MP who has not broken the legal limit on expenses?


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2016)

Still waiting.


----------



## Duncan2 (May 22, 2016)

Can't say that Cameron seemed anything other than a picture of smug nonchalance when Robert Peston asked him about this issue earlier.Could just mean that he feels safe with Peston I suppose.


----------



## Bingo (May 22, 2016)

ohmyliver said:


> Apparently bigger than that




Come on!!!


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2016)

Team Corbyn's New Economics Conference yesterday


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2016)

Only thing, older leftists say it was like this with Foot as well, excitement huge crowds, etc..

not many young people there either.


----------



## killer b (May 22, 2016)

Did you mean to post in this thread?


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2016)

Mistake, have posted in other thread now.


----------



## brogdale (May 23, 2016)

Bingo said:


> Come on!!!


He's a tease, isn't he?


----------



## Libertad (May 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> He's a tease, isn't he?




Probably more digging from Michael Crick to be reported on Channel4 news this evening.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 23, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Probably more digging from Michael Crick to be reported on Channel4 news this evening.



Someone asked him that on Twitter and he said it wasn't Channel 4.


----------



## Fingers (May 23, 2016)




----------



## teqniq (May 23, 2016)

So what's the chances of anyone getting their collars felt over this or better still bringing down what passes for a government here these days?


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2016)

Fingers said:


>



how did this work out then? 

isn't this wanker always breathlessly trailing shit that never materialises? Why does anyone bother taking him seriously anymore?


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2016)

oh, that's from today. 

either way, second sentence stands.


----------



## discokermit (May 23, 2016)

liam fox looked rattled on daily politics today.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 23, 2016)

Anything to do with the Republican Party volunteers they flew in?  That might have cost a few quid.

Still fairly trivial, I can't imagine anything involving election finances that would have the public raging at the gates of Downing Street.  Outside the bubble it's nothing.


----------



## J Ed (May 23, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Anything to do with the Republican Party volunteers they flew in?  That might have cost a few quid.
> 
> Still fairly trivial, I can't imagine anything involving election finances that would have the public raging at the gates of Downing Street.  Outside the bubble it's nothing.



he's already talked about that


----------



## brogdale (May 23, 2016)

As a guess I'd say that if the Met have decided to act upon the SNP's request to investigate party HQ on some sort of conspiracy grounds/already 'raided' CCHQ...that would represent a significant escalation.


----------



## mauvais (May 23, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Anything to do with the Republican Party volunteers they flew in?  That might have cost a few quid.
> 
> Still fairly trivial, I can't imagine anything involving election finances that would have the public raging at the gates of Downing Street.  Outside the bubble it's nothing.


Well, if they managed to up the count from the 11 MPs apparently under investigation to, say, 12, and then they managed to nick them all, then there wouldn't have been a majority in the 2015 election 

Not that simple though because some of this relates to byelections since.

The majority now is 18, FWIW.


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Well, if they managed to up the count from the 11 MPs apparently under investigation to, say, 12, and then they managed to nick them all, then there wouldn't have been a majority in the 2015 election
> 
> Not that simple though because some of this relates to byelections since.
> 
> The majority now is 18, FWIW.



Did all these marginals go the tory way? If so then a majority of 18 becomes a minority of 4 even with only 11 MPs.


----------



## mauvais (May 23, 2016)

Sorry, I should have said byelections _before _- they were in 2014.

The 11 are all Tory MPs. 




			
				C4 said:
			
		

> Channel 4 News understands the investigations so far are looking at 11 Conservative MPs, including three ministers. The Government’s current majority is 18.



Election Expenses exposed


----------



## J Ed (May 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Did all these marginals go the tory way? If so then a majority of 18 becomes a minority of 4 even with only 11 MPs.



All of the allegations so far are aimed at Tories


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Well, if they managed to up the count from the 11 MPs apparently under investigation to, say, 12, and then they managed to nick them all, then there wouldn't have been a majority in the 2015 election
> 
> Not that simple though because some of this relates to byelections since.
> 
> The majority now is 18, FWIW.


This can all be true and proven to be true with not a single seat being vacated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 23, 2016)

discokermit said:


> liam fox looked rattled on daily politics today.



Probably Gin O'Clock, to be fair.


----------



## Fingers (May 23, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (May 23, 2016)

Fingers said:


>




The more he does this teasing the more I think it's not really going to be anything important.

I want to be wrong with every fibre of my being, I really do, but I don't think I am.


----------



## brogdale (May 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The more he does this teasing the more I think it's not really going to be anything important.
> 
> I want to be wrong with every fibre of my being, I really do, but I don't think I am.


"...power in all of this switches to you guys..."
Hmmm


----------



## J Ed (May 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> "...power in all of this switches to you guys..."
> Hmmm



Yes but that could mean anything from GREEN SURGEEEE to something that actually matters


----------



## mauvais (May 23, 2016)

Well, looks like there's nothing on the front pages, so so far, so meh.


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2016)

smoking gun? The computers that crashed. And the campaign that didn’t. The story of the Tory stealth operation that outwitted Labour last month | Conservative Home


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 24, 2016)

discokermit said:


> smoking gun? The computers that crashed. And the campaign that didn’t. The story of the Tory stealth operation that outwitted Labour last month | Conservative Home



The relevant bit there is:



> CCHQ had also co-opted the RoadTrip2015 campaign model – which had been developed by Mark Clarke, the Parliamentary candidate in Tooting in 2010, during the previous year – and which delivered activists from elsewhere to campaign in target seats.
> 
> This proved difficult and costly to scale up, but buses and trains were provided to ensure that the right people arrived at the right place at the right time. Later in the campaign, six battle buses (real buses in the Midlands, the South West, two in the North West, a “SpAd bus” leaving from CCHQ each day and a metaphorical bus of 50 people heading out from London on the train) would be deployed to fill campaigning gaps in more remote or less well-staffed battleground seats.



...which does seem to indicate that these buses were going to specific target seats to support the campaigns of specific tory candidates.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes but that could mean anything from GREEN SURGEEEE to something that actually matters


Thinking about that specific wording from Eoin...does it imply that the OB are going to open up the enquiry nationwide by inviting complaints from the public?


----------



## rhod (May 24, 2016)

discokermit said:


> smoking gun? The computers that crashed. And the campaign that didn’t. The story of the Tory stealth operation that outwitted Labour last month | Conservative Home



_"Team2015 would need around £300,000 during the 18 month run-up to polling day,  a fair bit of it to be spent on buses, train tickets, hotel rooms and curries to get and keep people where they were needed.

Not everyone thought that this would be a good use of funds. Crosby was concerned that the proposed model of campaigning would prove “messy”, and potentially disruptive *to the national message"*_

In other words, quite separate from the national message, i.e. local campaigning.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> The relevant bit there is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...which does seem to indicate that these buses were going to specific target seats to support the campaigns of specific tory candidates.


'A metaphorical bus'? It's not the fucking magic bus, is it?


----------



## nino_savatte (May 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Thinking about that specific wording from Eoin...does it imply that the OB are going to open up the enquiry nationwide by inviting complaints from the public?


That would be nice. I suspect overspending isn't the only thing that took place. A woman from Chippenham told me that when she got to her local polling station, she was only given a local election ballot paper and not one for the GE. I wonder how much of that went on? Then there are the ballot papers that went missing or had incorrect details printed on them.

ETA: It's getting to the stage where we need international observers to monitor our elections.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 24, 2016)

Spending restrictions only come into force from a certain date, so if some of the bussing and expenditure comes before then it doesn't count.  I think this is why some of the fingers pointed back at Labour haven't hit a target, because the examples they've provided of Labour bussing people in was before the cut-off date.


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2016)

Well it looks like he is going to miss his second self-imposed deadline. What a dick


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Well it looks like he is going to miss his second self-imposed deadline. What a dick


I think he's the model the canary base their schtick on.


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think he's the model the canary base their schtick on.



Good god it says something depressing about where we are when clickbait websites which operate purely on the basis of luring in their audience with misinformation which then quickly turns into disappointment are able to monetise that process.


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2016)

It's all the more depressing that I keep hoping just this once he isn't full of shit.


----------



## campanula (May 24, 2016)

teqniq said:


> So what's the chances of anyone getting their collars felt over this or better still bringing down what passes for a government here these days?



Ah, the creeping futility of it all - confess - this is my first glance at this thread - just more fatalistic ennui and an attack of 'so what'. Shameful really.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 24, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Spending restrictions only come into force from a certain date, so if some of the bussing and expenditure comes before then it doesn't count.  I think this is why some of the fingers pointed back at Labour haven't hit a target, because the examples they've provided of Labour bussing people in was before the cut-off date.



Bussing-in groups of people is a relatively cheap exercise compared to paying for hotel rooms for individual supporters.


----------



## stethoscope (May 24, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Bussing-in groups of people is a relatively cheap exercise compared to paying for hotel rooms for individual supporters.



From what I understand, they were put up in hotels as well as bussed in.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 24, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> From what I understand, they were put up in hotels as well as bussed in.


Exactly and these 'workers' wouldn't have been put up in cheap hotels or B&Bs either.


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2016)

are spads civil servants? cos there was a spad bus as well. could that be important?


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

discokermit said:


> are spads civil servants? cos there was a spad bus as well. could that be important?


tbf that'd probably class as national party spending for the national campaign, unless they were specifically going out to distribute local candidates leaflets etc.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 24, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Exactly and these 'workers' wouldn't have been put up in cheap hotels or B&Bs either.


I saw the story done by Michael Crick on Channel 4. They were quite expensive hotels. It was I think part of the "rewards" for effort being given out by the Tories in their latest election campaigns. He didn't mention Labour workers being put up in hotels. They would be unlikely to have the funds to do that.


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2016)

Well it's no longer morning, stupid Éoin


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I saw the story done by Michael Crick on Channel 4. They were quite expensive hotels. It was I think part of the "rewards" for effort being given out by the Tories in their latest election campaigns.


channel 4 has it that the plebs were in travel lodge or similar, the higher ups got posher hotels.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 24, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Bussing-in groups of people is a relatively cheap exercise compared to paying for hotel rooms for individual supporters.



All those bussed in folk still need somewhere to sleep though. Part of the failing of the Tory party is that despite that all that money swilling around they are so awful that they still don't have enough boots on the ground to volunteer in local areas. Hence the bussing people in. Hence the only plebs willing to volunteer  stayinging in paid for hotels.  Hence the overspend.


----------



## Flanflinger (May 24, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> All those bussed in folk still need somewhere to sleep though. Part of the failing of the Tory party is that despite that all that money swilling around they are so awful that they still don't have enough boots on the ground to volunteer in local areas. Hence the bussing people in. Hence the only plebs willing to volunteer  stayinging in paid for hotels.  Hence the overspend.



Cunts should have been made to sleep on the streets.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 24, 2016)

Flanflinger said:


> Cunts should have been made to sleep on the streets.



No need for that. There was a perfectly acceptable bus...


----------



## danny la rouge (May 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Well it's no longer morning, stupid Éoin


Howlin' Wolf - Smokestack Lightnin'


----------



## DotCommunist (May 24, 2016)

what does he get out of it? if you have something, share it. Acting the tease on twitter for what purpose, a wind up?


----------



## Fingers (May 24, 2016)




----------



## Libertad (May 24, 2016)

Fingers said:


>




*Taps fingers*


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2016)

Fingers said:


>




what does that even mean? He could put it up on his phone if his laptop isn't working


----------



## Santino (May 24, 2016)

Some kind of crowd-sourcing/kick-starting nonsense.


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2016)

it means fuck all, and he's got nothing. Standby for announcement of legal considerations meaning it has to be 'delayed'.


----------



## Fingers (May 24, 2016)

Might be more a case of his website not working, but then again, he may be full of shite
The web site is under construction


----------



## stethoscope (May 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> it means fuck all, and he's got nothing. Standby for announcement of legal considerations meaning it has to be 'delayed'.



Yeah, that reads to me like 'the legal team are just taking a look over it'.


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Might be more a case of his website not working, but then again, he may be full of shite
> The web site is under construction


All the evidence of his long and illustrious history of being full of shite point to the latter.


----------



## mauvais (May 24, 2016)

Perhaps he's been introduced to a new hobby, like home escapology.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> what does he get out of it? if you have something, share it. Acting the tease on twitter for what purpose, a wind up?


Matthew 24:36


----------



## Dogsauce (May 24, 2016)

Translation:  This 'scoop' isn't significant enough to have legs of its own, so we're relying on hyperbolic fools to spread it around social media as the only option to get ourselves attention.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 24, 2016)

MSM


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2016)

What a pompous fuck.


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Translation:  This 'scoop' isn't significant enough to have legs of its own, so we're relying on hyperbolic fools to spread it around social media as the only option to get ourselves attention.




So like the green surge nonsense


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2016)

He's still at it


----------



## danny la rouge (May 24, 2016)

Oh ye of little faith. The time is nigh!


----------



## Santino (May 24, 2016)

Which nation?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> He's still at it



Jesus, Ed. Rapture prediction allusions required. Pipping me without a finely crafted rapture prediction allusion doesn't count. Disqualified.


----------



## Fingers (May 24, 2016)

I need a wee


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2016)

Fingers said:


> I need a wee



That's what a fair proportion of Twitter is, isn't it? "I'm up late today", "just going for a shit" ... we're now at "I'm on the khazi now" "was expecting the dump already", "been a bit more delayed", "i'm raising my left cheek now" ..


----------



## DotCommunist (May 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> That's what a fair proportion of Twitter is, isn't it? "I'm up late today", "just going for a shit" ... we're now at "I'm on the khazi now" "was expecting the dump already", "been a bit more delayed", "i'm raising my left cheek now" ..


TOILET DESTROYED! to all patrons of the Dock&Duck in Slough- I'd give it twenty minutes


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2016)

OK, been away from tinterweb today...so what's the big story, then?

Oh.....


----------



## Libertad (May 24, 2016)

The suspense is kil oh look squirrel


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

The Mirror is asking for volunteers to get copies of all tory MPs election expenses returns from their local councils.

Volunteer to Check a Tory and put the spotlight on election spending


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 24, 2016)

free spirit said:


> The Mirror is asking for volunteers to get copies of all tory MPs election expenses returns from their local councils.
> 
> Volunteer to Check a Tory and put the spotlight on election spending



...and they want you to pay the printing and postage costs


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2016)

How Tory MPs failed to declare thousands spent in marginal seats

This is all just a repeat of the C4 stuff, isn't it?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 24, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2016)

This is just terrible. 

I think Éoin reckons that ordinary people, who have good cause to fear the continuation of the Tory gov, are just people whose hopes and fears you can play on in order to manufacture social media outrage. Except he isn't even very good at that, just morally culpable enough to bring himself to do it even if he isn't actually capable.


----------



## stethoscope (May 24, 2016)

Is this it then?!

I was expecting at least a dedicated Guardian minisite of revelations given his hype.


(actually, I wasn't)


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2016)

I don't think crowdsourcing datacrunching like this is that bad an idea, but what a wanker. Fucking hell.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 24, 2016)

I'm sure his constituents appreciate his time pissing about on twitter with bollocksed up faux scoops, thats the mark of a true servant of the people lol

wait is he even an MP? oddly 'some ressults removed' on the old googlebox. I'm guessing not then. I thought he was an NI bod i've never heard of lol


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2016)

He has constituents??


----------



## DotCommunist (May 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> He has constituents??


nah I thought he was an MP for some reason but it appears he is not.


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think crowdsourcing datacrunching like this is that bad an idea, but what a wanker. Fucking hell.



Why is this sort of behaviour seen as acceptable by anyone? It's just purely transparent manipulation. This whole thing has been like an article on The Canary that takes two days to load.


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2016)

Éoin blocked me for pointing out what he has done, what a dick.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 24, 2016)

Well I hope we've all learned a lesson here about posting content rather than rumours. 'Some bloke on twitter' does not count as an inside source.


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

40 MPs election expenses published by the Mirror


----------



## danny la rouge (May 24, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Translation:  This 'scoop' isn't significant enough to have legs of its own, so we're relying on hyperbolic fools to spread it around social media as the only option to get ourselves attention.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 24, 2016)

He seems to have pissed off a few folk with that performance. 

He did make it seem like he actually had some new info rather than a crowdsourcing scheme:


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2016)




----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

Eoin seems to be sharing whatever he has with a few twitter types to get them to confirm that he has something.


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2016)

free spirit said:


> Eoin seems to be sharing whatever he has with a few twitter types to get them to confirm that he has something.




I still bet he's wrong and these people just have no idea what they are talking about or feel the need to say these sorts of things out of some sort of personal loyalty. Even what they are saying is uniform, wouldn't be surprised if he just copied and pasted those texts to them and asked them to tweet em.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2016)

The story about the vermin putting their lawyers up against Kent police in an attempt to stop them getting the 12 month inquiry extension into Mackinlay's expense fraud is far bigger that Eoin's crap.


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

went through the pudsey candidates spending return, and noticed that they've gone through and taken off the costs of any undelivered portion of leaflets they've had printed.

I'm not sure if that's allowed or not, it doesn't seem in line with the intent of the rules though.

Adding it up, if they'd included the full costs of that printing it'd have pushed them over the limit by £98.20.

Not great, but more of a minor fuck up than a serious attempt to get round the spending limits. I doubt anyone would be going to prison for this, but I did a spreadsheet anyway.

I


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

I bet they don't usually go through counting every undelivered leaflet and declaring them in that way, they must have realised they'd gone over the limit and come up with this ruse.


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2016)

ninty two quid? what a waste of time.


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2016)

free spirit said:


> I bet they don't usually go through counting every undelivered leaflet and declaring them in that way, they must have realised they'd gone over the limit and come up with this ruse.


why would you have to declare spending on a leaflet you threw in the bin?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 24, 2016)

this is why we should just get them all, financial bollocks never touches them. Osbourne made a blatant tidy out of the post office sale. Nobody blinked, least of all them. Panama papers. The list could go on and on and way back into history. They don't care. Pluselectoral shennanigans is second nature to them, they've never liked the franchise being extended to the landless man etc


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

discokermit said:


> why would you have to declare spending on a leaflet you threw in the bin?


because it was money that they spent specifically for that local campaign, the fact that they didn't have enough volunteers to deliver them all doesn't alter the fact that the money was spent on that campaign in the specified period.

It's not like they were generic leaflets that could continue to be used after the campaign finished, it was campaign specific material.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2016)

Private Eye had a piece this issue on Tory MP Gavin Barwell Private Eye 



> In his book, Barwell boasts how he managed to raise £90,000 towards his 2015 campaign – almost twice as much as he would be allowed to spend. The book is coy when it comes to explaining what happened to the surplus 40 grand.
> ...
> This is where his officially submitted records are contradicted by his book. “We were determined to deliver more literature than Labour,” Barwell says in How To Win A Marginal Seat. In his official return, Barwell claims that one batch of 50,000 leaflets (invoiced on 15 April 2015) was “85 percent delivered”. Yet in his book he writes that with the help of 200 activists “we delivered a leaflet through every one of the just under 50,000 letterboxes in Croydon Central in just over three hours”.



Even if only £92 over, this is only what they've declared. If the battle bus expenses were to be added in for the constituency that might take it well over if they just didn't declare them.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Private Eye had a piece this issue on Tory MP Gavin Barwell Private Eye
> 
> 
> 
> Even if only £92 over, this is only what they've declared. If the battle bus expenses were to be added in for the constituency that might take it well over if they just didn't declare them.


That's right, Barfwell's defence being that “If you don’t put stuff through people’s door, how does that influence people? Where do you draw the line?”


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

ah, so it looks like that might well be advice that came from central office then if it's happened in more than one location.

One of the key issues with it being that it's impossible to check, unless they keep all the non-delivered leaflets for 12 months.


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> That's right, Barfwell's defence being that “If you don’t put stuff through people’s door, how does that influence people? Where do you draw the line?”


it makes sense. if he spent twenty zillion pounds on leaflets and didn't show them anyone, he's not unduly influencing anyone, is he?
this sort of shit is a non starter.


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2016)

free spirit said:


> One of the key issues with it being that it's impossible to check, unless they keep all the non-delivered leaflets for 12 months.


they keep them for hundreds of years buried in a secret location. see if you can find it. report back.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2016)

free spirit said:


> ah, so it looks like that might well be advice that came from central office then if it's happened in more than one location.
> 
> One of the key issues with it being that it's impossible to check, unless they keep all the non-delivered leaflets for 12 months.



Indeed - they should have to hand back any leaflets they don't deliver. If they were a body of people you could trust that wouldn't be needed. 

Barwell also claimed he'd only spent £1.84 a day on renting an office .... in south London ... before the election.


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

discokermit said:


> it makes sense. if he spent twenty zillion pounds on leaflets and didn't show them anyone, he's not unduly influencing anyone, is he?
> this sort of shit is a non starter.


not really.

The limit is set in order to level the playing field financially. Applying the rules in this way means that those with money to burn can print as many leaflets as they want so they never need to worry about running out or carefully estimating how many they'll be able to deliver, then only declare the ones they actually deliver. Whereas those with less money can only print the leaflets they can afford, and can end up running out of leaflets because they've underestimated to stay within budget.

Also cost per unit reduces as the print run size increases, so buying 15k but only declaring 1/3 of it will result in a lower declaration than if you only bought 5k.

Basically if it's money that's been paid for something specifically for that election campaign then it should be included in the return. Whether that money has been used efficiently or effectively should have no bearing on this.


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

it does seem relatively minor in this case in pudsey, but it does give that party an advantage in a tight campaign.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2016)

More concerning would be them delivering 50,000 leaflets but then claiming they'd only delivered 25,000 for example. Cut your actual printing costs in half.


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2016)

yes. carry on your fight over leaflets no one has seen. go on hunger strike. ninety two pounds!


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> More concerning would be them delivering 50,000 leaflets but then claiming they'd only delivered 25,000 for example. Cut your actual printing costs in half.


exactly.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2016)

discokermit said:


> yes. carry on your fight over leaflets no one has seen. go on hunger strike. ninety two pounds!


Many thousands in other cases, like Mackinlay's.
Anyways...when they apply their laws to us there's very rarely any latitude given, is there?


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Many thousands in other cases, like Mackinlay's.
> Anyways...when they apply their laws to us there's very rarely any latitude given, is there?


if it's the only case against them, unseen leaflets, then there is no case and you look like loons.
if there are more important things then this is a distraction.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2016)

discokermit said:


> yes. carry on your fight over leaflets no one has seen. go on hunger strike. ninety two pounds!



The £92 isn't the only amount though, is it? It's quite possible they *didn't* deliver those leaflets and so they were quite right to discount them. 

Those are only their disclosed accounts  - they're not going to put "£5,000 illegally not declared on battle bus and hotel expenses" are they? It's the expenses they've *not* declared that are the problem. 

Go on hunger strike to defend them if you like, though.


----------



## xenon (May 24, 2016)

This will fizzle out, no one will see the inside of a court room.  It's like pig gate all over again. Some people just getting overexcited and spent too long on Twitter.


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> The £92 isn't the only amount though, is it? It's quite possible they *didn't* deliver those leaflets and so they were quite right to discount them.
> 
> Those are only their disclosed accounts  - they're not going to put "£5,000 illegally not declared on battle bus and hotel expenses" are they? It's the expenses they've *not* declared that are the problem.
> 
> Go on hunger strike to defend them if you like, though.


it's the delivered leaflets that are the issue. and hundreds of thousands in hotel bills, transport, food, wages.


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> More concerning would be them delivering 50,000 leaflets but then claiming they'd only delivered 25,000 for example. Cut your actual printing costs in half.


that potentially could be what happens if this is allowed.


----------



## Fingers (May 25, 2016)

As a freelance journo myself, WTF was he playing at? 

 I have had big stories before and you cannot bank on the MSM running with it, even though they have told you that it will hit the headlines at X time? You need to put it on Twitter as soon as you have got the story published. Most publishers will give you a wee bit of notice to get it out there before them, even if it is ten mins or so.

Sadly he seens to be attention seeker who got a load more followers on Twitter and that is his shit.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 25, 2016)

xenon said:


> This will fizzle out, no one will see the inside of a court room.  It's like pig gate all over again. Some people just getting overexcited and spent too long on Twitter.



yeah - I really can't see this going anywhere. The public will shrug - even though its potentially a criminal offence it doesn't feel like any great shakes - "The tories  spent more money so delivered more leaflets than labour" - is not like blatant ballot rigging. It doesn't have the same obvious inequity of the FPTP voting system - that hasn't become a big issue so i cant see this catching fire.  
Even if any tory mp gets charged (big if) they will use every trick in the book to drag the process out for ever.


----------



## discokermit (May 25, 2016)

i think it's got the potential to be huge.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 25, 2016)

discokermit said:


> i think it's got the potential to be huge.



how?


----------



## teqniq (May 25, 2016)

A huge souffle maybe.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 25, 2016)

It's the arrogance of not playing by the rules, of using money to get round the fact you have fewer members to campaign for you because people think you're cunts.  It's buying an election basically.

Thing is, it'll defuse because they'll find Labour will have been breaking the rules too, even if not in a systematic and countrywide way, and that will be enough to mute the damage.  CCHQ and Guido will be frantically hunting for this evidence now, or will have a dossier lined up to put out as soon as the story breaks in a bigger way, if it does at all.

It's like the expenses thing - all the duckhouses and house-flipping could have buried the tories if it wasn't for the fact other parties were at it too, so they shared the damage.  This is less toxic because it doesn't smack of greed in the same way, it'll not be seen the same way as someone lining their pockets at the taxpayer's expense.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2016)

discokermit said:


> it's the delivered leaflets that are the issue. and hundreds of thousands in hotel bills, transport, food, wages.


Exactly.
And the decision(s) taken at CCHQ to co-ordinate that law breaking. That could be very difficult for the vermin.


----------



## teqniq (May 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Exactly.
> And the decision(s) taken at CCHQ to co-ordinate that law breaking. That could be very difficult for the vermin.


Well ok but currently the story such as it is doesn't seem to have much traction with the press. Maybe I am expecting too much too soon though and should wait for results of investigations by OB.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Well ok but currently the story such as it is doesn't seem to have much traction with the press. Maybe I am expecting too much too soon though and should wait for results of investigations by OB.


Who would have thought that the capitalists' press would go easy on a story about law-breaking by the (right) party of capital?


----------



## teqniq (May 25, 2016)

Heh, well yes there is that of course.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> It's the arrogance of not playing by the rules, of using money to get round the fact you have fewer members to campaign for you because people think you're cunts.  It's buying an election basically.
> 
> Thing is, it'll defuse because they'll find Labour will have been breaking the rules too, even if not in a systematic and countrywide way, and that will be enough to mute the damage.  CCHQ and Guido will be frantically hunting for this evidence now, or will have a dossier lined up to put out as soon as the story breaks in a bigger way, if it does at all.
> 
> It's like the expenses thing - all the duckhouses and house-flipping could have buried the tories if it wasn't for the fact other parties were at it too, so they shared the damage.  This is less toxic because it doesn't smack of greed in the same way, it'll not be seen the same way as someone lining their pockets at the taxpayer's expense.


I think you're on the right track with the vermin's 'damage-limitation' strategy, but the "whataboutery" will/should have no influence on the OB's investigation into their alleged law-breaking and the CPS decision afterwards.


----------



## Fingers (May 25, 2016)




----------



## killer b (May 25, 2016)

Who cares? Come back when there's something real.


----------



## Fingers (May 25, 2016)

I care.


----------



## teqniq (May 25, 2016)

Which begs the question, what have they got to hide?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Which begs the question, what have they got to hide?


their accounts.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2016)

Fingers said:


> I care.



Yeah, a good look for the vermin...trying to impede the OB's investigations...they must be seriously rattled to do that.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2016)

killer b said:


> Who cares? Come back when there's something real.


what are you doing on urban if you're going to object to idle speculation?


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2016)

breathlessly posting up any old tweet by eoin tosspots mates as if they mean anything though - what's the point in that? It just makes you look like a credulous tool.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2016)

killer b said:


> breathlessly posting up any old tweet by eoin tosspots mates as if they mean anything though - what's the point in that? It just makes you look like a credulous tool.


yeh. don't make fun of brogdale's lack of breath. it does not redound to your credit.


----------



## Fingers (May 25, 2016)

killer b said:


> breathlessly posting up any old tweet by eoin tosspots mates as if they mean anything though - what's the point in that? It just makes you look like a credulous tool.



If it bothers you so much, block me mate, then you will not have to endure breathless postings.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2016)

killer b said:


> breathlessly posting up any old tweet by eoin tosspots mates as if they mean anything though - what's the point in that? It just makes you look like a credulous tool.


OK, I admit that I may have posted up some of his tweets...but seriously, there's enough meat to this story without us bickering amongst ourselves. At the very least this will prove to be a major distraction to the party machine...and it could get worse for them.


----------



## J Ed (May 25, 2016)

I think that the story could be important but I object to Éoin's behaviour, he has lied to people and manipulated them in order to build enthusiasm for something that isn't nearly as big as he made out it would be.


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2016)

Fingers said:


> If it bothers you so much, block me mate, then you will not have to endure breathless postings.


Don't be a child.


----------



## Fingers (May 25, 2016)

killer b said:


> Don't be a child.



Listen mate, this stroppy spat at my postings is your issue not mine.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2016)

killer b said:


> Don't be a child.


you're hardly being adult about this


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2016)

This is a discussion forum. We discuss things here, including where we think each other are wrong. I don't have a 'problem'.


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2016)

'Mate'


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2016)

Anyway...talking of twitter, I see that Crick's been a little quiet of late. If I were a tory I'd be a little disconcerted by that.


----------



## Fingers (May 25, 2016)

killer b said:


> This is a discussion forum. We discuss things here, including where we think each other are wrong. I don't have a 'problem'.



Quite and if it can be done without patronising put downs the discussion will be all the better for it. I think we are all agreed that Éoin' is a bit of a plank the way he has gone about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Anyway...talking of twitter, I see that Crick's been a little quiet of late. If I were a tory I'd be a little disconcerted by that.


probably gutted by manchester united's performance, he's a season ticket holder.


----------



## stethoscope (May 25, 2016)

If there's some good stuff to come, why didn't Eoin feed it into the work that C4 are already leading on? Are C4 also sitting on the same stuff as he says he is? And why start sending 'evidence of unpublished stuff' to people who don't seem to have any influence to try and keep them interested? Just publish it for fucks sake.


----------



## J Ed (May 25, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> probably gutted by manchester united's performance, he's a season ticket holder.



another reason to find him annoying


----------



## J Ed (May 25, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> If there's some good stuff to come, why didn't Eoin feed it into the work that C4 are already leading on? Are C4 also sitting on the same stuff as he says he is? And why start sending 'evidence of unpublished stuff' to people who don't seem to have any influence to try and keep them interested? Just publish it for fucks sake.



I had no idea what BA and VP meant about Éoin before all of this since I didn't really know who he was, and I hadn't had any interactions with him, but by god do I get it now.


----------



## mauvais (May 25, 2016)

TBF, if you Google the man, you get '100 Worst People On Twitter'.

And he's not even good at that. He's 54th.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I had no idea what BA and VP meant about Éoin before all of this since I didn't really know who he was, and I hadn't had any interactions with him, but by god do I get it now.


See also The Many Apologies of Dr Eoin Clarke (not an endorsement of the site obv)


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2016)

Vermin have not managed to impede OB's extension of investigation time in the SW.


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> See also The Many Apologies of Dr Eoin Clarke (not an endorsement of the site obv)


That's the thing: this bloke was totally discredited as a source of anything even before this, and his behaviour over the past few days should have brought it home to anyone who had any doubts or is unfamiliar with him. 

Quoting him as a source makes you look silly to people who're onto him, and makes him look more credible to people who aren't. Lose/lose.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2016)

Fingers said:


>




Oh gods not another one


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> It's the arrogance of not playing by the rules, of using money to get round the fact you have fewer members to campaign for you because people think you're cunts.  It's buying an election basically.
> 
> Thing is, it'll defuse because they'll find Labour will have been breaking the rules too, even if not in a systematic and countrywide way, and that will be enough to mute the damage.  CCHQ and Guido will be frantically hunting for this evidence now, or will have a dossier lined up to put out as soon as the story breaks in a bigger way, if it does at all.
> 
> It's like the expenses thing - all the duckhouses and house-flipping could have buried the tories if it wasn't for the fact other parties were at it too, so they shared the damage.  This is less toxic because it doesn't smack of greed in the same way, it'll not be seen the same way as someone lining their pockets at the taxpayer's expense.



Assuming Labour have something to hide here, and assuming it's less widespread and less systematic with them than with the tories, the smart thing for them to do would be go through everything with a fine tooth comb themselves and throw any guilty parties under the bus before the papers find out or the police start sniffing around. Get out in front of it, as I believe PR people would say.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Assuming Labour have something to hide here, and assuming it's less widespread and less systematic with them than with the tories, the smart thing for them to do would be go through everything with a fine tooth comb themselves and throw any guilty parties under the bus before the papers find out or the police start sniffing around. Get out in front of it, as I believe PR people would say.


Might leave them with few MPs?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Might leave them with few MPs?



Maybe, but if they can create a situation where they lose a couple of MPs and the tories lose a dozen, then that's a win. They would also be able to go into any by-elections claiming that their ousted MP was a rogue wrong 'un, while the tories who got caught cheating were part of a national cheating strategy.


----------



## Libertad (May 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Vermin have not managed to impede OB's extension of investigation time in the SW.









Good to see that James Nesbitt is still keeping his hand in.

Top right is Scott Mann our odious local vermin.  Top left is Alison Hernandez, Devon and Cornwall's newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner, who had been the Tory general election agent in May last year. You couldn't make this shit up.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 27, 2016)

West Yorks Police seize Calder Valley Conservative Association accounts following an anonymous tip off. The local Tory party chairman resigns.


> Impolite Conversation has learned that, following an anonymous tip off, West Yorkshire Police have seized Calder Valley Conservative Association's accounts and are investigating missing invoices relating to expenses totalling around £28,000.
> 
> A resignation email to the deputy chair of the association from Charles Moran, chair of the association until today, states: "As you are aware, it has taken some time to get to the bottom of the Association's finances, a task you requested be carried out last October. Whilst there are still outstanding issues with the accounts I have submitted to the Electoral Commission, it is a best estimate and I have also copied it to Andy Stedman at Compliance. The reason I have been unable to accurately finalise the accounts is as a result of missing records that have been requested from the Treasurer on several occasions and have not been supplied. Attached to this email is a copy of a Chartered Accountant's report which states that the accounts are not being kept as they should be. There are issues regarding the recording of cash receipts, lack of cash recording with no receipts issued for payments received, missing invoices and a lack of authorisation for expenditure. Clearly the Executive has a responsibility to correct these shortcomings.
> 
> Police Seize Calder Valley Conservative Association Accounts


----------



## Bingo (May 27, 2016)

BAM!!! Wicked, I'm from Calderdale


----------



## nino_savatte (May 27, 2016)

Bingo said:


> BAM!!! Wicked, I'm from Calderdale


I noticed that Craig Whittaker's thin majority decreased last year. 
Calder Valley (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Santino (May 27, 2016)

It's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up.


----------



## Duncan2 (May 27, 2016)

Think I am the only one still waiting for the unpublished evidence a.k.a Eoin's crap.


----------



## mauvais (May 27, 2016)

Santino said:


> It's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up.


It's not the cover-up that covers you up, it's the cover they cover you up with?

It's never too late to reach for your revolver.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 27, 2016)

Zelo Street reports on how US Republicans were flown over at great expense and parachuted into marginal constituencies. One of those constituencies was Croydon South, where Chris Philp won by 17,000 votes. 


> So who paid? That was a sensitive point: “_A document detailing the programme logistics of the trip, including the estimated $2,500 (£1,675) cost, appears to have disappeared or been removed from the group’s website since the Guardian made inquiries about the purpose of the trip and how many activists would be attending_”.
> But if they were canvassing in any constituency, and they had been transported in from outside, one might expect the candidate’s expense return to show something. Chris Phip’s return is now online, thanks to the Mirror’s “_Peoples Electoral Commission_”. So what does it say about transport costs? It doesn’t: Philp’s return has a big round zero for transport costs. Zip. Zilch. Nil. Nada. Not a sausage. _Bugger all_.
> Zelo Street: Tory Expenses - The US Contingent



Here's Philp's election expenses return.
http://s3.mirror.co.uk/mirror/checkatory/chris-philp.pdf


----------



## teqniq (May 27, 2016)

So it's looking like a proper can of worms to me, but not much thanks to that Eoin person really.


----------



## Fingers (May 27, 2016)

More revelations on C4 News tonight.. coming up in a bit


----------



## Duncan2 (May 27, 2016)

Marion Little very quiet.


----------



## stethoscope (May 27, 2016)

Fingers said:


> More revelations on C4 News tonight.. coming up in a bit



Latest update here:
New expenses scandal emerges as Tories fight police in court


----------



## Duncan2 (May 27, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Latest update here:
> New expenses scandal emerges as Tories fight police in court


Marion could soon be a minor celebrity-the next Su-Bo?


----------



## stethoscope (May 27, 2016)

She got an OBE in the last New Years honours (along with that Crosby cunt) as far as I can see for just being a 'party organiser'.
Almost 30 Tory Party members or supporters have received New Year's Honours


----------



## Fingers (May 27, 2016)

A 17th police force wants more time to investigate alleged Tory election fraud


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2016)

The legal attempt to prevent Kent police from having time to investigate their wrong-doing will be very difficult to spin when they finally have to come clean about this.


----------



## teqniq (May 27, 2016)

They will probably attempt to portray it as wasting police resources or something along those lines.

e2a that's actually more likely what will be argued in the hearing on Wednsday


----------



## Duncan2 (May 27, 2016)

teqniq said:


> They will probably attempt to portray it as wasting police resources or something along those lines.
> 
> e2a that's actually more likely what will be argued in the hearing on Wednsday


Given that they are putting a QC up the Mags might not be too impressed with that line of argument.Can't imagine what else it would be though especially after what Lord Feldman told Crick.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Zelo Street reports on how US Republicans were flown over at great expense and parachuted into marginal constituencies. One of those constituencies was Croydon South, where Chris Philp won by 17,000 votes.
> 
> 
> Here's Philp's election expenses return.
> http://s3.mirror.co.uk/mirror/checkatory/chris-philp.pdf


I have tweeted Philp to ask if he is able to confirm that YRNF members did campaign for him during the short.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I have tweeted Philp to ask if he is able to confirm that YRNF members did campaign for him during the short.


*rubs hands together* This should be interesting.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> *rubs hands together* This should be interesting.


He won't reply to me. He's consistently refused to address my questions about his fitness to sit on the TSC...





He's also started to ignore 'Inside Croydon''s enquiries....


----------



## nino_savatte (May 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> He won't reply to me. He's consistently refused to address my questions about his fitness to sit on the TSC...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gutless, spineless and chinless.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2016)

Come on you blues....


----------



## teqniq (May 28, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (May 28, 2016)

It's rare to look at a map like that and be happy about the blue bits!


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Come on you blues....



Pretty much half of England


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 28, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Good to see that James Nesbitt is still keeping his hand in.
> 
> Top right is Scott Mann our odious local vermin.  Top left is Alison Hernandez, Devon and Cornwall's newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner, who had been the Tory general election agent in May last year. You couldn't make this shit up.



Devon and Cornwall filth have handed the investigation to another force I think, on account of their own commisioner being implicated.

Anyone with any decency would step down if they found themselves in the position that Hernandez is in now. But, as these are tories we're talking about, I wouldn't hold your breath.


----------



## Fingers (May 28, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Devon and Cornwall filth have handed the investigation to another force I think, on account of their own commisioner being implicated.
> 
> Anyone with any decency would step down if they found themselves in the position that Hernandez is in now. But, as these are tories we're talking about, I wouldn't hold your breath.



West Mercia are investigating them.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> He won't reply to me. He's consistently refused to address my questions about his fitness to sit on the TSC...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, he did reply  to categorically deny that he had any campaigning assistance from YRNF. Unfortunately for this tale, I tend to believe that he's telling the truth and that Tim Fenton @ Zelo St has correctly reported on a blog from a confused/dumb young American. It would have made little sense for resources to have been thrown at Philp's rock-solid, blue-rinse Croydon South when help was needed in Barwell's marginal of Central. I'll keep my eye on this, but I think it looks like a blind alley atm.
Sorry.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 29, 2016)

Chris Philp gets his arse handed to him by Will Self.


----------



## brogdale (May 29, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Chris Philp gets his arse handed to him by Will Self.



That's always cheering.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2016)

Interesting (half) story from Mackinlay's Fanet South campaign...seems a tad tenuous (journalistically) but actually quite believable.



> Police are being asked to investigate extraordinary claims that the *Tories paid an unemployed woman to pose as a party supporter and help their general election campaign.*
> 
> It is alleged that an activist leafleting voters in Thanet South one month before the May poll was hired as a temp for the day but this was not declared locally as an election expense.





> Councillor Wallace said: “On April 10th the Conservative Party's Battle Bus visited Sandwich, in South Thanet, with a number of activists on board. During the day they distributed leaflets, campaigned in the town centre and held a meeting at the Phoenix Centre youth club.
> “After the meeting a member of staff at the Phoenix Centre spoke to one of the activists and asked her why she had travelled from London to campaign in Sandwich for the Conservative Party.
> “*The activist replied that she wasn't a supporter of the Conservative Party but was actually unemployed and was recruited in her local job centre in London to campaign for the Party.*
> “She was paid to travel on the bus, hand out leaflets and take part in the campaign while wearing a blue rosette.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Interesting (half) story from Mackinlay's Fanet South campaign...seems a tad tenuous (journalistically) but actually quite believable.
> 
> 
> ​



They look increasingly like a Potemkin Party, like a real life actual person version of the bots spreading the good word about Hillary Clinton on twitter.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> They look increasingly like a Potemkin Party, like a real life actual person version of the bots spreading the good word about Hillary Clinton on twitter.


Might further explain their determination to put up a legal fight to prevent the OB going over any of this. They appear to be in it up to their necks.


----------



## newbie (May 30, 2016)

I'm really dubious about this.  If it's true, which I doubt, any competent police investigation will presumably uncover some evidence from the jobcenter.  That alone is too much of a hostage to fortune for anyone with half a political brain to leave leave lying around.  Ok the chances that the investigation will be both fair and competent are slim, but even so.

more to the point, imagine it was you, J Ed, .C  or any other contributor to this thread offered the work, ie someone sufficiently savvy and politically opposed to the tories to want to take the opportunity to cause them as much embarrassment as possible. Even worse, from their pov, someone not remotely aligned to this thread but a ukip supporter, random racist or loon who wanted to sneer at people with a white van and England flag.  How would they vet the jobseeker, how could they trust someone not to set them up, right in the middle of a very high profile primetime election.  I know that if 'twas me being offered the work once I'd twigged the situation I'd be on the phone to the Mirror asap.

They are tories, being pretty dumb and very arrogant goes with the territory, but they're not entirely clueless, are they?


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2016)

Canary, (I know), reckon they've opened another possible front on the election expenses story.

A whistleblower exposes a major new allegation in the Tory election fraud scandal (EXCLUSIVE) | The Canary


----------



## gawkrodger (May 31, 2016)

I'll pay attention when it's reported by sources other than The Canary!


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 1, 2016)

FWIW the leave campaign are doing push-polling at the moment as they called a friend of mine a couple of days ago with a 'survey' of leading questions. Seems to be a popular technique, used a lot in US elections.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 1, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Chris Philp gets his arse handed to him by Will Self.




Funnily enough haven't seen him out protesting despite a whole heap of privately owned 'public' spaces hiring rent a cops to police behavior. River's prime for that, you can cross one block and suddenly be harassed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> FWIW the leave campaign are doing push-polling at the moment as they called a friend of mine a couple of days ago with a 'survey' of leading questions. Seems to be a popular technique, used a lot in US elections.



Unsurprisingly popular, as it's not so much polling, as the insertion of a narrative or perspective.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 1, 2016)

Tory attempt to block police investigation into election fraud allegations fails


----------



## Libertad (Jun 1, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Tory attempt to block police investigation into election fraud allegations fails





> “There is a very significant public interest in the matter being fully investigated,” said district judge Justin Barron, according to local newspaper _Kent Messenger_.
> “The consequences of a conviction would be of a local and national significance with the potential for election results being declared void.”



Too fucking right.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Tory attempt to block police investigation into election fraud allegations fails


That's so good that they tried and failed.
We'll never forget that.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 1, 2016)

KentPolice s176RPA Application Judgment

the full legal thingy.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2016)

discokermit said:


> KentPolice s176RPA Application Judgment
> 
> the full legal thingy.




> Mr Laddie has pointed out that he does not represent the Conservative Party


Hired liar telling lies about the lying liars.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, a rather telling silence i think.


**Warning; Daily Mail link**...

As expected...


> Labour MP Naz Shah faced questions last night over her election expenses.
> Documents appeared to show that the hotel bills of a Labour peer who came north to campaign with the Bradford West MP were declared as national expenditure – when at least part of the cost should have been cited as local expenses.
> 
> Lord Kennedy, a former councillor in London, stayed at the Bradford Holiday Inn Express for 37 days during the election campaign – at a cost of £1,949.53.But the hotel appeared in national spending and not local spending – even though Miss Shah has confirmed that the peer had campaigned specifically for her.
> A member of the public is understood to have referred the case to West Yorkshire Police.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 2, 2016)

Tantalising. I wasn't aware that elections could be declared void over election expenses fraud - so their may be some fun mileage in this after all. 

Tory election win over Nigel Farage could be 'void' due to expenses scandal


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Tantalising. I wasn't aware that elections could be declared void over election expenses fraud - so their may be some fun mileage in this after all.
> 
> Tory election win over Nigel Farage could be 'void' due to expenses scandal


don't know how you could get to page 12 of this thread without seeing that stated explicitly


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> don't know how you could get to page 12 of this thread without seeing that stated explicitly



better things to do?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> better things to do?


like what?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> like what?



Well normally it would be something like playing football manager but yesterday it was abusing nigel farage directly to his face.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Well normally it would be something like playing football manager but yesterday it was abusing nigel farage directly to his face.


sounds like an and rather than an or: abuse nigel farage to this face _and_ read this thread.

that is, it is on a par with reading this thread, not better than reading this thread.


----------



## newbie (Jun 3, 2016)

brogdale said:


> **Warning; Daily Mail link**...
> 
> As expected...
> ​


I wonder how many votes this lord no-one knows or cares about managed to swing during his 5 week stay up north?  No matter, while this is an obvious tit for tat response, on the face of it it's just as inexcusable as the tories doing the same.  Disqualify the lot and throw the main perpetrators in jail, say I.


----------



## JimW (Jun 3, 2016)

Shah could stand down immediately, win the by-election and make the Tory frauds look even worse. Wasn't it Respect that was a threat in that seat?


----------



## newbie (Jun 3, 2016)

while that may add dignity to the politics of the affair, it wouldn't cure the legal issues.  If she's broken election law she should be disqualified, preferably for life, and maybe jailed, though not necessarily for life.  Well, not without parole, anyway.


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2016)

David Allen Green has been looking into the law - not that encouraging.


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2016)

So: if it's directed nationally, some fines and a bit of reputational damage. Locally, disqualifications & by-elections. Seems a bit unfair.


----------



## newbie (Jun 3, 2016)

no politicians in jail?  damn.

I wonder who made a law that toothless?

oh.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 3, 2016)

killer b said:


> So: if it's directed nationally, some fines and a bit of reputational damage. Locally, disqualifications & by-elections. Seems a bit unfair.



The fraud itself is one thing, the possible conspiracy to commit that fraud quite another. 

I find it hard to see how an election result can be allowed to stand when the winning party is known to have committed fraud.


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> The fraud itself is one thing, the possible conspiracy to commit that fraud quite another.


Is it? I'm no lawyer, so I've no idea about these things. David Allen Green is though, and he's usually pretty good on this kind of thing. What's your legal background?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2016)

killer b said:


> Is it? I'm no lawyer, so I've no idea about these things. David Allen Green is though, and he's usually pretty good on this kind of thing. What's your legal background?


I found this quite a reasoned overview...though I've got no idea about the guy's level of 'expertise'.

What are the likely consequences of Tory electoral fraud?


----------



## two sheds (Jun 3, 2016)

Surely if there was national wrongdoing then there was by definition local wrongdoing too?


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I found this quite a reasoned overview...though I've got no idea about the guy's level of 'expertise'.
> 
> What are the likely consequences of Tory electoral fraud?



It had the phrase 'mainstream media' in the first sentence.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 3, 2016)

killer b said:


> Is it? I'm no lawyer, so I've no idea about these things. David Allen Green is though, and he's usually pretty good on this kind of thing. What's your legal background?



I don't have a legal background. I do however know that conspiracy to commit even a relatively minor offence can be considered a serious crime in itself, even if you never actually did the thing you were conspiring to do.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 3, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Surely if there was national wrongdoing then there was by definition local wrongdoing too?



Morally yes, legally maybe not. Possibly this is why Cameron keeps saying 'I'm ultimately responsible for everything'.


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2016)

So we should ignore the opinion of an expert solicitor because you 'know' something?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 3, 2016)

I suspect the case will be that local candidates were advised to account for expenses in a certain way by central office, so proving culpability of candidates will be difficult - they'll choose someone at HQ to carry the blame instead to ensure MPs aren't prosecuted.

Is there anything losing candidates can do e.g. sue for potential loss of earnings etc?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Surely if there was national wrongdoing then there was by definition local wrongdoing too?


Essentially, yes.
Like anyone else, candidates (& their agents) 'persuaded' by CCHQ of the wheeze of classifying local (Battlebus) campaigning as 'national' will not be able to claim ignorance of the law as a defence. The Electoral Commission's guidance to candidates is quite explict:-






e2a: the first words in the candidates' booklet states that..





> *Candidates and their agents must follow certain rules set out in legislation.*


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2016)

For them to be unseated other then by election petition (very rare) they need to be convicted of a criminal offence and jailed for a year+ ( i think i may have mentioned this one or two times ). Which is the max sentence. That's pretty much it. The strongest criminal punishment after conviction needs to happen for a void election to be declared. Which means  lot of seriously strong evidence of all sorts of things.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2016)

( btw, david allen Green joined the lib-dems after they went into coalition with the tories. Note, not david allen coe - that's a whole different sort of ideological scumess)


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> ( btw, david allen Green joined the lib-dems after they went into coalition with the tories. Note, not david allen coe - that's a whole different sort of ideological scumess)


I am aware of this - he's still pretty clear headed on legal things though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2016)

killer b said:


> I am aware of this - he's still pretty clear headed on legal things though.


Oh he is, it wasn't a point about what you posted - hence the brackets. I've used him against assange nuts and on other issues before.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 3, 2016)

Not saying you're wrong but if no effective action's taken locally it'll be a green light to do it all again next election.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2016)

According to Wiki, the last election voided on the grounds of false declaration of election expenses was in 1923.


> _False declaration of election expenses; exceeding limit on election expenses; payment other than through election agent; illegal hiring_


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2016)

brogdale said:


> According to Wiki, the last election voided on the grounds of false declaration of election expenses was in 1923.
> ​


tbh given the similarities between these various overspends i think that the cps would be within their rights to prosecute as conspiracy: it may of course be that threads lead to people within conservative central office.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh given the similarities between these various overspends i think that the cps would be within their rights to prosecute as conspiracy: it may of course be that threads lead to people within conservative central office.


Agreed.
However, because candidates/agents have signed off the local returns they would, on the face of it, appear to look like fellow conspirators?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Agreed.
> However, because candidates/agents have signed off the local returns they would, on the face of it, appear to look like fellow conspirators?


yeh conspiracies generally have more than one person in them


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh conspiracies generally have more than one person in them


Yes.
But 'fellow' in the sense that of being possibly additional to any conspiracy _within _CCHQ.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes.
> But 'fellow' in the sense that of being possibly additional to any conspiracy _within _CCHQ.


ach i think it will all be a nine day wonder, even if it should be a trial of the century thus far.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> ach i think it will all be a nine day wonder, even if it should be a trial of the century thus far.


Crick's first C4 report was in February (I think)...it's already been a long 9 days. 
I wonder if, after recent events, the OB are quietly quite enjoying this ('boot on other foot') chance to expose wrong-doing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Crick's first C4 report was in February (I think)...it's already been a long 9 days.
> I wonder if, after recent events, the OB are quietly quite enjoying this ('boot on other foot') chance to expose wrong-doing?


yeh the opportunity for the plebs to put the boot into the patricians


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 3, 2016)

I think there must have been some awareness of the rules, given quite a few constituencies have come in just under the limit, achieved in some cases by deducting undelivered leaflets from the expense total and tricks like that. It's blatantly taking advantage of the fact that they have deeper pockets, which is what the law is supposed to guard against.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 7, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> I'll pay attention when it's reported by sources other than The Canary!


The Graun actually cites The Canary in this article.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2016)

A lengthy and thorough explainer of the law behind this story.  Comes to conclusions that will disappoint Eoin, but worthy of your time if you want a realiastic assessment of what is likely to happen:

(Behind a paywall, so I'm posting a C&P odyssey) :


Part 1

*The law and politics of the Conservative election expense allegations*

David Allen Green



The UK Conservative party is facing serious allegations and extensive investigations in respect of their campaign expenses at last year’s general election.

The national party is being investigated by the Electoral Commission, and at least nineteen Conservative MPs are reported to be under investigation by local police forces (needless to say, the candidates and agents under investigation all deny any wrongdoing). There is formal coordination between the Electoral Commission, several police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) — an unprecedented and extraordinary situation.

The allegations come from excellent dogged and diligent journalism by Channel 4 andthe Daily Mirror. The investigations are being cheered on by opponents of the current government, but the matters raised are potentially serious. One question is, however, whether these potentially serious matters – if proven – will lead to any legal consequences that will affect the small Conservative majority. Another wider question is whether they should do.

Just as not all problems have solutions, not all proven abuses have knock-on effects with legal sanctions and charges. This post sets out why, on the basis of currently available information and the applicable law, it may be that the allegations may have little or no legal impact, let alone some of the extreme claims being made by some as to what could possibly happen.

The current allegations are primarily about two things. But in essence the allegations are about whether certain spending and expenses incurred by the Conservatives in the last – and very close – general election were properly returned and declared.

The underlying contention is that the Tories spent heavily and unfairly in the marginal constituencies which in turn gave them their governing majority: in short, that the Conservatives “bought the general election”.

The first group of allegations is about the expenses of “battle buses” which visited a number of marginal constituencies. It seems the national Conservative party included the expenses of these buses in their national return but the complaint is that the expenses should have been included as part of the candidates’ local returns, which are subject to far tighter limits. Yesterday Charles Walker, a respected Conservative MP,claimed that the approach of treating such activities as a national expense was something also done by other parties.

If the expenses of the buses are determined to be a local expense, then many of the candidates and their agents could have breached their tight constituency spending limits. This in turn may mean a criminal offence has been committed and, if so, the MPs become disqualified, losing their seats and resulting in by-elections.

The second group of allegations is about the hotel expenses of various activists in marginal constituencies. It appears that these were not included at all by either the national Conservative party or local candidates in their returns. Conservative HQ says that the amount was just under £40,000 and that its omission was an administrative error and that it should have been included in the national return.

On this, the national party points out (plausibly) that as their overall national spending (£15.6 million) was well within the national limit (£19 million) and there was no reason not to include it — it was just an oversight. But if the hotel expenses, however, were (even in part) a local election expense, so again the failure for it to be included in the local returns may mean a criminal offence has been committed and the MP becomes disqualified, losing their seat and causing a by-election.

What electrifies this situation, of course, is that the Conservative majority in the House of Commons is only thirteen. It would, in theory, only require seven disqualifications to lead to the government majority being placed in jeopardy. So not only would there be prosecutions and possible imprisonment of Tory MPs, the government itself could fall. Some on social media are even suggesting that the laws passed by a government with such an “illegal majority” could be invalid, or that the impending EU referendum is somehow illegitimate.

As a matter of trite constitutional law, there is no possibility whatsoever of legislation being rendered legally (as opposed to morally) invalid by reason of any disqualifications of members of parliament. The laws passed by parliament will still stand.

But how fanciful are the other suggestions? Could the current allegations lead to a spate of by-elections which could in turn topple the current government? There is no doubt that the current majority is small and, like any small majority, is at risk of the effect of by-elections over time. It is worth noting that there is no reason why the Conservatives would not keep any seat in a forced by-election with a different candidate, as indeed happened in a forced by-election Winchester in 1997 – but there is still the theoretical possibility of such a defeat.

*The investigation into the national campaign*

The investigation on the national level is being conducted by the Electoral Commission. This public body only has responsibilities and powers over national election and referendum campaigns, and not over the campaigns in the constituencies. This means any disqualifications and by-elections in the constituencies will not and cannot come directly from the investigation into the Conservatives by the Electoral Commission.

There appears to be two possible offences which the national party may have committed. Under the relevant legislation, the treasurer of a political party has to provide a return detailing the spending on the national campaign, together with receipts, and to make a declaration that it is to be the best of his or her knowledge complete and true. If the return is not correct and there is no reasonable excuse for this, then the treasurer may be committing an offence. If the treasurer “knowingly or recklessly” makes a false declaration then there is also an offence.

In respect of the offence for the expenses return not being correct, the Electoral Commission can impose a “civil sanction” of up to £20,000 per breach. This sanction can be on the party rather than a treasurer personally.

If the Electoral Commission decides, however, that this civil sanction is inappropriate, or if it believes that the treasurer knowingly or recklessly made a false declaration, then the case can be referred to the CPS for a charging decision. If the CPS decides there is sufficient evidence, and it is in the public interest, there will be a criminal prosecution. If convicted on indictment, a party treasurer would face up to a year in prison and unlimited fine. That said, the two previous occasions it has referred a case to the CPS, no prosecutions were brought because the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence (see here and here).


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2016)

Part 2

So unless the Electoral Commission decides to refer any breach to the CPS, the likely result of any investigation into the national party will be a civil sanction. The civil sanction regime was introduced in 2009 because the possibility of criminal prosecutions appeared to be a toothless threat. Unless a civil sanction is imposed then, based on past form, it is probable there will be no criminal prosecution by the CPS.

The maximum civil sanction which the Electoral Commission has so far imposed for any electoral offence is £8,000. In respect of incomplete expense returns, there seems to be two previous examples of civil sanctions, both from the Scottish independence referendum campaign. “Wings Over Scotland” group were fined £750 and “Better Together” were fined £2,000. The reasons of the Electoral Commission for the latter sanction are worth looking at in the current context, and were as follows:

_“The Electoral Commission has fined Better Together £2000 because the campaign expenditure report it delivered to the Commission did not include invoices or receipts to support approximately £57,000 (5%) of its expenditure. The law requires receipts or invoices for all items of expenditure of over £200._

_“Better Together was a designated lead campaigner in the Scottish Independence Referendum, with more significant resources and a higher profile than other campaigners. Taking this into account, the Commission decided a financial sanction was appropriate in this case._

_“The Commission found no evidence to suggest that the omissions were deliberate, and took into account that the responsible person for the organisation made efforts to provide further supporting documentation after the deadline for the report had passed.”_

In the current situation, the Conservatives maintain that the relevant undeclared amount (that is, for the hotel bills) is less than £40,000. If this figure turns out to be correct, then it is lower as an amount and as a percentage of the overall spend than the omission by Better Together which led to the £2,000 fine. The omitted amount also would not breach their national limit on campaign expenses, and so it could be said that no prejudice was thereby caused.

Even taking such mitigation into account, the circumstances of the omission once any adverse facts have been established, and the difficulties that the Electoral Commission have had in extracting information from the Conservatives, may mean that any civil sanction will be substantially higher than that imposed on Better Together for their omission.

But whatever the amount imposed as a fine, it cannot exceed £20,000 per breach and the imposition of a fine cannot lead directly to a single disqualification or by-election.

*The police investigations into the constituency campaigns*

The drama of any disqualifications and by-elections will come from the many reported police investigations into campaigns into Conservatives’ spending in the constituencies.

These investigations are under a different statute and are, in principle, separate from the work of the Electoral Commission. The relevant law is complex, with several obligations and offences. But in essence, the candidate and the candidate’s agent are under tight spending limits and it can be an “illegal practice” or a “corrupt practice” — depending on seriousness and whether dishonesty is involved — if these limits are not complied with.

The central issue in the current police investigations is whether the expenses to do with the “battle buses” which visited a number of marginal constituencies, and hotel expenses for various activists and campaign workers who appear to have worked in marginal constituencies, are a local expense which should have been returned. If so, then it would appear the strict spending limits in a number of constituencies were breached, and a criminal offence had been committed.

It is not clear how any court would decide the status of the battle bus and hotel expenses to be a national or local expense. The status would be a matter of fact, rather than a matter of law. If there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution then it would be for a magistrate (or in a serious case, a jury) to decide.

In the 1999 case of Fiona Jones MP, where she was convicted and then acquitted on appeal of a “corrupt practice”, the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Bingham) made a distinction between an expense (in that case, rent of an office) “_incurred for the promotion of the interests of the candidate”_ and _“any value [the expense] had in raising the party’s profile or making its local presence felt”_. There is no simple absolute divide between the two.

The Lord Chief Justice also explained how questions of what constitutes an election expenses are often not clear cut:

_“There is no simple and decisive test to determine whether an expense is or is not an election expense within the meaning of the Act. Some expenses obviously are, some obviously not. But there may be some expenses about which reasonable people, applying themselves to the question in all good faith, could reach different conclusions, either as to whether an expense should be included at all or, if it appears that some part of a larger sum should be included, in what smaller sum. In this intermediate area, questions of judgment may arise. But no crime can be committed unless it is clearly shown that an election expense which should have been included has been either omitted or understated. (We can for practical purposes ignore cases in which expenses have been wrongly included or overstated.)”_

(Sadly the case report for this is not freely available on the internet.)

It would appear that the important point about no crime can be committed, unless it is clearly “shown that an election expense which should have been included has been either omitted or understated”, is a general one. Therefore, it would apply as much to “illegal practices” where there is no alleged dishonesty as to “corrupt practices” where there is dishonesty.

In allowing the appeal of Ms Jones, which was in respect of a conviction for a “corrupt practice”, the Lord Chief Justice was emphatic as to the need for such a prosecution to prove dishonesty in addition to any non-compliance:

_“[the requirement of knowledge] is crucial, because it defines the dishonest knowledge which constitutes the mens rea [that is, the requirement that there be criminal intention] of the statutory crime and which must be established before a defendant is convicted. It is not a crime to declare an honest belief in a declaration of election expenses in which some expenses which should have been included have been omitted or some expenses have been understated by showing an expense smaller than should have been shown, unless the person making the declaration knows that it is false in one or other respect or both. Honest belief in the truth of the declaration, and thus in the completeness and accuracy of the figures disclosed, is a complete defence. But it is, of course, for the prosecution to prove lack of honest belief and not for the defendant to prove his honesty. The nub of the offence is the declaration of an honest belief in the accuracy of a disclosure which is known to be incomplete or inaccurate”._


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2016)

Part 3

The key requirement to show dishonesty was also emphasised by the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Lord Brooke) in a 2005 appeal case in respect of a local government by-election offence (at paragraph 13):

_“This corner of our election law is still couched in antique, old-fashioned language. We are not concerned with a modern statutory offence which, for instance, creates absolute liability for inaccuracies, subject to a defence if the person charged exercised the diligence reasonably to be expected of him. We are concerned not with an offence of negligence, but with an offence of dishonesty.”_

Taking the 1999 and 2005 appeal decisions together, with judgments from senior judges of the highest calibre, it is clear that to prosecute any “corrupt practice” requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was dishonesty rather than mere non-compliance. And the Lord Chief Justice in the 1999 decision is just as clear that “shades of grey” expenses – where reasonable people may differ in good faith – are also not sufficient to establish criminal liability, regardless of any additional requirement to show dishonesty.

In respect of the current allegations against Conservative candidates and agents it would seem that any prosecution for either an illegal or a corrupt electoral practice will need to establish that it was clear that the expenses were such that they should have been on the candidates return (either in full or part). If the prosecution is for a “corrupt practice” then the prosecution will also have to demonstrate – beyond reasonable doubt – dishonest intent.

It will be a matter for the police, and then the CPS and a court, to determine whether these elements are made out. But even if there is a conviction, any disqualification (and thereby by-election) will not take place until any appeal has been determined. The process will not be quick.

It would appear that many of the police forces which are reported to be investigating the alleged offences are, in fact, waiting for the Electoral Commission to examine and assess the evidence obtained from the national Conservatives against a threat of a court order. This is apparent from a judge’s decision of 1 June 2016 in the one case where the local candidate contested the police request for an extension of time. The judge said (at paragraph 31):

_“A central question is the extent of the investigation by Kent Police. I am not satisfied on the information before me, that there has to-date, been any substantive or meaningful investigation by Kent Police.”_

Here, the judge was entirely right to allow the extension of time (the passages of this judge’s decision about voided elections which have been quoted by excited by people on social media are no more than statements of the law). And the police forces in Kent and elsewhere were right to seek such extensions while they wait on the Electoral Commission’s investigation: new evidence may well come to light which may mean local prosecutions can be brought.

The situation is exceptional and the investigations must be given more time than a year from the date of the alleged offence. But these extensions of time are simply to “hold the ring” whilst investigations are properly conducted. The extensions of time do not, by themselves, mean anything about whether charges will be bought.

*Possible outcomes*

The Conservative election expenses story is still at an early stage, and there are a number of points where this story may come to an end.

The national investigation has only recently obtained the evidence at which it wants to look, but this national investigation can only lead directly to a civil sanction (other than the remote possibility of a CPS prosecution). The local police investigations – to the extent they can be meaningfully called investigations – are at a basic stage. There have been no arrests, no referrals to the CPS for charging decisions, and no prosecutions, still less any convictions which – after a lengthy appeal processes – could one day lead to by-elections in seats which the Conservatives may well win back again anyway.

The facts that certain expenses were treated as national expenses or not included in any returns seem beyond doubt. This needs no further investigation as such. The real issue is whether there is evidence as to the intentions of various people involved. Were they up to no good? Or was there a muddle? Or were they following established practices or national party guidance in good faith?

Unless compelling evidence emerges of wrongful and dishonest intention – either on a personal level or as part of a conspiracy – then it is hard to see any charges or criminal prosecutions in respect of the allegations as they currently stand.

If the facts can be explained away as people acting in good faith, dealing with expenses on which reasonable people can take different views or following what were understood to be the generally accepted practices of all political parties, then any criminal charges are unlikely. There may be one or two cases of possible disqualification, where the spend cannot be easily explained away, but a spate of by-elections so as to put the current majority at risk seem unlikely.

*The law and politics of elections*

The present UK law on electoral expenses is a mess. There is, of course, no good or sensible reason to have a system where the national and local parties are investigated under separate laws, by separate bodies with separate legal consequences. This is especially true when the outcomes of general elections will in practice be determined by what happens in marginal constituencies. In reality, the campaign in the marginal constituencies is often determinative of the national campaign, and it is artificial to pretend otherwise.

The current split national/local regime means there are things which will fall in the gap, and no doubt the party organizations know this. A cynic may say that the current electoral laws were devised by politicians so as to make it easy for politicians. If nothing else, the current investigations show that the current law on election expenses is not fit for purpose. If the alleged facts are proved and there are no significant legal outcomes, then this will not be from any grand cover-up or white-wash but simply because of how the law is structured.

This is a problem. Good and sound election law is a precondition of a democracy, and not a distraction from it. If it is easy to avoid or evade, or if there are no real consequences for a clear breach, then the credibility of the election (or referendum) is affected and can be fairly questioned. Regardless of the outcome of these investigations, election law must be reformed to take account of the realities of political campaigning, with special and effective provisions for overall party spends affecting marginal seats rather than a futile and meaningless national-local distinction.

But the current allegations also signify something perhaps ugly about contemporary UK politics. There seems an increasing tendency for politicians and activists to seek criminal liability for their opponents, rather than to just defeat them in the ballot. This cannot be a good thing. Reporting a political opponent to the police should always be a last resort in exceptional circumstances, not a standard and casual political tactic.

A non-partisan approach to this situation would be blind to the identity of the parties and politicians involved. It would matter just as much, or just as little, if it were the small majority of a hypothetical Jeremy Corbyn government at risk from court litigation and police investigations (and imagine the outcry if that happened) than that of the current one. But one gets the sense from those cheering on these investigations that this point is often not realised: it’s enough that the small Conservative majority is in their sights.

The problem with electoral law being used to gain party advantage is that it turns political issues into legal ones, and determining political questions is never a good or wise use of the legal system. The true purpose of electoral law is to maintain the integrity of such elections as a way of choosing a government in a democracy, rather than become its substitute. If electoral law is broken then it needs fixing, but the only appropriate “legal” means of turning out any government must always remain that of a general election.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2016)

All the above in posts 415-417, after the byline, is a quoted article by David Allen Green, not my work.  ^


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 8, 2016)

Cheers for those posts danny. Last few paragraphs are a load of liberal guff, but the general overview about what chance this issue has of going anywhere seems sound.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Cheers for those posts danny. Last few paragraphs are a load of liberal guff, but the general overview about what chance this issue has of going anywhere seems sound.


Precisely. 

For those of you who don't know Green, that's a pretty good summary of him! Sound legal knowledge, but the politics is liberal guff.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2016)

Seems like Mackinlay's tenure as MP for Thanet South is somewhat doomed.

Tory aide arrested in Houses of Parliament rape investigation - BBC News


> _A Tory MP's chief of staff has been arrested on suspicion of rape following an alleged attack at the Houses of Parliament, the BBC understands.
> 
> It is understood the man is Sam Armstrong, a 23-year-old who works for South Thanet MP Craig Mackinlay._


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Seems like Mackinlay's tenure as MP for Thanet South is somewhat doomed.
> 
> Tory aide arrested in Houses of Parliament rape investigation - BBC News
> ​


maybe 1 down then, to a slender majority of 5


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Seems like Mackinlay's tenure as MP for Thanet South is somewhat doomed.
> 
> Tory aide arrested in Houses of Parliament rape investigation - BBC News
> ​



Zelo Street: Tory Bullying And Expenses Collide


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Zelo Street: Harry Cole Dobs In One Of His Own


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Zelo Street: Harry Cole Dobs In One Of His Own


Jesus, in Mackinlay's office.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Jesus, in Mackinlay's office.


Don't like the gloating 'you'll love this' tone/content of that piece at all.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Don't like the gloating 'you'll love this' tone/content of that piece at all.


It is rather too breathless for such a (potentially) serious matter; agreed.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 1, 2017)

Apologies if already posted but I just came across this via Craig Murray, perhaps it may be useful.

The 2015 UK General Election Expenses Investigation


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Apologies if already posted but I just came across this via Craig Murray, perhaps it may be useful.
> 
> The 2015 UK General Election Expenses Investigation


the latest news story from there Election Expenses: New emails reveal PM’s top aide in central role in local campaign (c4 news)


----------



## brogdale (Mar 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the latest news story from there Election Expenses: New emails reveal PM’s top aide in central role in local campaign (c4 news)


Jumped by Crick, Timothy's only visible reaction was to remove the Villa scarf he was wearing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 1, 2017)

There's also compelling evidence that Nick Timothy looks like a shit Rasputin.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 1, 2017)

Spot the diff


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 2, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Seems like Mackinlay's tenure as MP for Thanet South is somewhat doomed.
> 
> Tory aide arrested in Houses of Parliament rape investigation - BBC News
> ​



Charged now:

Man charged with two counts of rape


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2017)

.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 2, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Charged now:
> 
> Man charged with two counts of rape



Kinda puts Joyce's drunken scrapping into perspective.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Electoral commission not that bothered, OB won't touch it, statute of limitation expired and the oppo are all at it anyway.


A recently published response to an FoI request demonstrates that the OB have actually dedicated some resources to investigating the alleged tory election fraud (presumably including S. Thanet):-



> *There are 9 members of staff within the Kent and Essex Serious Economic Crime Unit who have
> been tasked.* Their ranks include; Police Staff, Detective Constable, Detective Sergeant, Detective
> Inspector and Detective Chief Inspector. All officers are experienced investigators and accredited
> to either PIP Level 2 or 3. PIP stands for Professionalising Investigation Programme; it ensures
> ...


Of course, of itself,this indicates little more than the fact that the OB felt it necessary to be seen to be investigating...but I thought it important to demonstrate that I may have been overly pessimistic.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 7, 2017)

Files have been handed over from the police to the CPS apparently. Struggling to find any mainstream coverage of this.

Some breathless commenters are saying that if enough seats are implicated and the tory majority is (somehow) negated then that would invalidate the brexit referendum bill and thus the referendum result itself, even though said bill had cross-party support


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 7, 2017)

Tory Majority Could Be ‘Wiped Out’ as Police Send Electoral Files to CPS

Yep saw it this AM. I have enough confidence in our political system to know that this will result in fuck all.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 10, 2017)

Heh, looks like it's not going to just 'go away' anytime soon.

Conservative Party 'cheated' election laws to win seats in General Election, whistleblowers claim



> Two Conservative activists have accused the party of “telling lies” over allegations it broke election laws in a number of key seats in the lead-up the 2015 General Election.
> 
> Gregg and Louise Kinsell, who campaigned for the party in several marginal constituencies, said Tory officials’ claims they had not acted illegally were untrue...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the latest news story from there Election Expenses: New emails reveal PM’s top aide in central role in local campaign (c4 news)


This is cracking...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2017)

brogdale said:


> This is cracking...



Andrew Gilligan rides again


----------



## The Pale King (Mar 14, 2017)

Conservative MP interviewed by police over election spending

Tory Mp Craig Mackinley is helping the police with their enquiries. The article has an email sent by a group of Mps under investigation to headquarters:

_ “At what stage do you think you (the party) might inform us that another media s***storm is coming? We didn’t create this mess, the clever dicks at CCHQ did, and I don’t see their professional reputations being trashed in the media much.”

“The initial cock-ups, ‘strategy’ and ineptitude with regard to this issue that has so negatively impacted our: lives, standing in our communities, standing amongst colleagues, families and our regard for particular parts of the party centrally, and were all of CCHQ’s making … need to stop.

“We are the ones who are now (and since the beginning as individuals have been) in the media spotlight and it might have been a little more reassuring and collegiate if the powers that be in our party perhaps tried to be a little bit more supportive and less interested in covering their own backsides.”
_
...I'm under no illusions that this investigation will come to anything in and of itself, but there may be some potential for the Tories, with their splits, small majority and leader who is hardly well-liked across her party let alone outside, to destabilise themselves over the cover-up.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> Conservative MP interviewed by police over election spending
> 
> Tory Mp Craig Mackinley is helping the police with their enquiries. The article has an email sent by a group of Mps under investigation to headquarters:
> 
> ...


On C4 News, Crick was also reporting some v. amusing spats emerging between the MPs under investigation and CCHQ.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 15, 2017)

12 Forces passed files to CPS, so far.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

Tories fined 70k by electoral commission


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2017)

Details Electoral Commission | Conservative Party fined £70,000 following investigation into election campaign expenses


----------



## brogdale (Mar 16, 2017)

killer b said:


> Details Electoral Commission | Conservative Party fined £70,000 following investigation into election campaign expenses



Key point.


> Knowingly or recklessly making a false declaration under this section of the Act is a criminal offence and falls outside the remit of the Commission’s civil sanctioning powers. It will be a matter for the police as to what steps they take following the Commission’s referral.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 16, 2017)

brogdale said:


> 12 Forces passed files to CPS, so far.



Lots of highly enjoyable foot-stamping righteous indignation from the tories quoted there. I love how shocked they are that the tory party has left them dangling in the breeze, I mean who would ever have known that tories were so unpleasant?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Lots of highly enjoyable foot-stamping righteous indignation from the tories quoted there. I love how shocked they are that the tory party has left them dangling in the breeze, I mean who would ever have known that tories were so unpleasant?



The _nasty party _will eat itself.


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 16, 2017)

I am surprised they haven't released news of the queen's death to cover this story up!  Yet!


----------



## newbie (Mar 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Tories fined 70k by electoral commission


trivial sum, they'll find a hedge fund to pay that off, and anyway all it means is that all three major parties have been recently fined.  Referring the treasurer to the CPS police might be a little more effective, but I doubt anything will come of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

newbie said:


> trivial sum, they'll find a hedge fund to pay that off, and anyway all it means is that all three major parties have been recently fined.  Referring the treasurer to the CPS police might be a little more effective, but I doubt anything will come of it.


Let's wait and see what happens to the MPs who have benefitted from this electoral fraud


----------



## newbie (Mar 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Let's wait and see what happens to the MPs who have benefitted from this electoral fraud


indeed, but that's a separate issue.  This is the national parties deliberately flouting the law, and the sanctions are trivial.  Doubtless legislative time will be found for some new law fairly soon, and Simon Day will get his knighthood.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 16, 2017)

I am not having a great deal of faith in the CPS bringing charges alas.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

newbie said:


> indeed, but that's a separate issue.


Yeh a criminal as opposed to a civil one


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

Parties? How many lab, lib dem, snp members under investigation?


newbie said:


> indeed, but that's a separate issue.  This is the national parties deliberately flouting the law, and the sanctions are trivial.  Doubtless legislative time will be found for some new law fairly soon, and Simon Day will get his knighthood.


----------



## newbie (Mar 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh a criminal as opposed to a civil one


Simon Day referred to met because his role may also be a criminal offence




Pickman's model said:


> Parties? How many lab, lib dem, snp members under investigation?



parties not individuals


> Both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have also been fined in recent months for breaching campaign spending rules.


Conservatives fined £70,000 for campaign spending failures


----------



## brogdale (Mar 16, 2017)

teqniq said:


> I am not having a great deal of faith in the CPS bringing charges alas.


Usual caveat of having no legal expertise...but one might suppose that the Electoral Commission having declared that the overspending/under-reporting has indeed occurred, then all that the CPS need from the OB is any evidence of intent to do so...and Crick/C4 have done a pretty good job of exposing that already.

Though, I'm conscious that your lack of faith might relate more to the political will of the CPS to bring the party/members to court.

e2a : Actual wording from the Electoral Commission's report...


> "Knowingly _*or recklessly*_ making a false declaration under this section of the Act is a criminal offence..."


----------



## teqniq (Mar 16, 2017)

Yup. pretty much the latter part of your post.


----------



## newbie (Mar 16, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Usual caveat of having no legal expertise...but one might suppose that the Electoral Commission having declared that the overspending/under-reporting has indeed occurred, then all that the CPS need from the OB is any evidence of intent to do so...and Crick/C4 have done a pretty good job of exposing that already.
> 
> Though, I'm conscious that your lack of faith might relate more to the political will of the CPS to bring the party/members to court.
> 
> ...


Intentionally or otherwise it seems most unlikely the police will find evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that a respectable christian auditor personally took steps to break the law.  Surely it's just a lower order management failure, the poor chap probably presided over a some sloppiness during a very busy period.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 16, 2017)

They must feel that they have found sufficient evidence otherwise they would not have passed it to the CPS.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 16, 2017)

newbie said:


> Intentionally or otherwise it seems most unlikely the police will find evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that a respectable christian auditor personally took steps to break the law.  Surely it's just a lower order management failure, the poor chap probably presided over a some sloppiness during a very busy period.


According to media reporting, that's not how Karl McCartney & his band of 30 see it.


----------



## newbie (Mar 16, 2017)

teqniq said:


> They must feel that they have found sufficient evidence otherwise they would not have passed it to the CPS.


the file on Simon Day, national party CFO & treasurer has gone to the Met to see whether evidence for a criminal charge can be found.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 16, 2017)

More than one file but I think that may have been mentioned upthread.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 16, 2017)

newbie said:


> the file on Simon Day, national party CFO & treasurer has gone to the Met to see whether evidence for a criminal charge can be found.


Politically more important to see MPs/agents in court.


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2017)

I presume the total silence on this story from all the other political parties is out of fear the beady eye of the electoral commission / Channel 4 may fall on them next? Or is there another reason?


----------



## newbie (Mar 16, 2017)

brogdale said:


> According to media reporting, that's not how Karl McCartney & his band of 30 see it.


it's always refreshing to see cats in a bag 

what the EC actually say is summarised as 


> the Party’s 2015 UK Parliamentary General Election spending return also failed to include all the required invoices and receipts associated with the Party’s campaign spending that were required by section 80(3) of PPERA. The Commission has also referred one matter relating to section 83(3) of PPERA to the Metropolitan Police Service. Section 83(3) required the Party’s treasurer to declare that he has examined the return and that to the best of his knowledge and belief, the return was complete and correct as required by law. A declaration to that effect was delivered alongside its spending return. The investigation established that the Party’s general election return was neither complete nor correct, and the evidence gathered during the course of the investigation has given the Commission reason to suspect that an offence may have been committed.  Knowingly or recklessly making a false declaration under this section of the Act is a criminal offence and falls outside the remit of the Commission’s civil sanctioning powers. It will be a matter for the police as to what steps they take following the Commission’s referral. For further details of the investigation and its findings, the Commission has published a full report which can be viewed on its website here:



full report, which i haven't yet read
http://www.electoralcommission.org....ct-of-the-Conservative-and-Unionist-Party.pdf


----------



## brogdale (Mar 16, 2017)

newbie said:


> it's always refreshing to see cats in a bag
> 
> what the EC actually say is summarised as
> 
> ...


Merely _mistakes_...nothing to see here...


----------



## teqniq (Mar 16, 2017)

Lol I see Kuenssberg is getting lots of flak for that tweet/lie.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 16, 2017)

one of my favourites


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 16, 2017)

mistakes were made


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 16, 2017)

Mistakes you'd expect to be random, some in one direction some in another. If all the 'mistakes' led to underreporting rather than overreporting of expenses, that suggests some sort of guiding force skewing the data, a force such as 'doing it on purpose'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Merely _mistakes_...nothing to see here...



if it had been labour she'd have been 'electoral commission fines labour a scanty £70k over election fraud'


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> mistakes were made


appointing laura k for one


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

killer b said:


> I presume the total silence on this story from all the other political parties is out of fear the beady eye of the electoral commission / Channel 4 may fall on them next? Or is there another reason?


fear of being told by theresa may they're playing politics with things they do not comprehend


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> if it had been labour she'd have been 'electoral commission fines labour a scanty £70k over election fraud'



'Jeremy Corbyn was unavailable for comment, probably because he was eating babies at the time.'


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2017)

Funny that the vermin are claiming that the funding 'mistakes' represent no co-ordinated conspiracy to breach electoral law when, just 2 years ago, Urban's 'favourite' libertarian explained very clearly that it was!



> CCHQ had also co-opted the RoadTrip2015 campaign model – which had been developed by *Mark Clarke*, the Parliamentary candidate in Tooting in 2010, during the previous year – and which delivered activists from elsewhere to campaign in target seats.
> 
> *This proved difficult and costly to scale up, but buses and trains were provided to ensure that the right people arrived at the right place at the right time.* Later in the campaign, six battle buses (real buses in the Midlands, the South West, two in the North West, a “SpAd bus” leaving from CCHQ each day and a metaphorical bus of 50 people heading out from London on the train) would be deployed to fill campaigning gaps in more remote or less well-staffed battleground seats. Most of the time, though, people were encouraged to make their own way.
> 
> The approach had its critics: a “Potemkin village”, some called it. This proved to be unfair.  *During the last 28 weeks of the campaign, Team 2015 supplied 26,000 campaigning days in the target seats. *While this effort was not a replacement for the wider party (or for the contribution of other supporting groups, such as the pro-hunting Vote-OK group, which contributed campaigners in around 25 seats, or the various Conservative “Friends of” groups), it was an undeniably valuable contribution. *If just 901 people in the most marginal seats had voted Labour instead of Conservative, last month’s majority would never have been achieved: every one of those days spent campaigning was crucial.*


----------



## teqniq (Mar 17, 2017)

Their own activists are on record as saying that they are lying:



> ...“When you hear that they’re saying that we went down and we were just giving the central government message, no, no we weren’t,” Ms Kinsell told Channel 4.
> 
> “I’m not going to lie about that. No we weren’t ... They’re telling lies about what we did. We duped people on the doors. It feels like cheating and I don’t like that... We were on the bus, we know what happened. We know what we were doing, and they know what we were doing.”...


----------



## newbie (Mar 23, 2017)

overview of the background and current state of play


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 23, 2017)

newbie said:


> Intentionally or otherwise it seems most unlikely the police will find evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that a respectable christian auditor personally took steps to break the law.  Surely it's just a lower order management failure, the poor chap probably presided over a some sloppiness during a very busy period.



I think it's fair to assume that if their are prosecutions they will involve some minor, expendable management drones rather than the people bearing ultimate responsibility.


----------



## newbie (Mar 23, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think it's fair to assume that if their are prosecutions they will involve some minor, expendable management drones rather than the people bearing ultimate responsibility.


... shooting the troops to save the generals ...


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2017)

The reality...


----------



## Smangus (Apr 18, 2017)

I know , lets have another election before they've finished investigating the last one, quick before no one notices.....


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2017)

brogdale said:


> The reality...



Perhaps they could consider a bit faster


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2017)

newbie said:


> ... shooting the troops to save the generals ...


----------



## Sue (Apr 18, 2017)

newbie said:


> ... shooting the troops to save the generals ...


Could maybe do with a bit of encouraging the others...


----------



## teqniq (Apr 19, 2017)

Not that I think the CPS will actually prosecute anyone, but it would be hilarious if they did.

Tory MPs face being prosecuted for electoral fraud while they are fighting the upcoming general election campaign


----------



## Smangus (Apr 19, 2017)

So how will civil service purdah affect this?


----------



## teqniq (Apr 20, 2017)

I suspect there may be some truth in this.

Theresa May scheduled the election to distract from Tory fraud scandal, say MPs


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2017)

teqniq said:


> I suspect there may be some truth in this.
> 
> Theresa May scheduled the election to distract from Tory fraud scandal, say MPs


Yes, quite possibly *"some" *truth.
But I'd assume it was just one factor in the mix that prompted May's volte-face. I think that the decision speaks most eloquently regarding her perception of the compromises/betrayals she will have to concede to the EU negotiators and a fear of those parliamentary elements that might have had leverage over her tiny majority. If I were a NI Unionist or a 'swivel-eyed' tory Brexiteer I'd be very concerned at May's desire to free herself from reliance upon their commons support.
Sure, the timing may well conveniently mask the imminent announcements of prosecutions, but (with hindsight!) this 6 weeks, including the French Pres. election) was the only obvious 'downtime' that there would be before the EU starts to negotiate.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2017)

Yeah, it seems obvious now (I dunno why it hasn't occurred to me before) that allowing the headbangers to steer brexit was the price of leadsom stepping aside. There's a lot of reasons why now, including the expenses stuff - but I think chiefly it's about shifting the balance of power within the Tory party itself.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 20, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Yes, quite possibly *"some" *truth.
> But I'd assume it was just one factor in the mix that prompted May's volte-face. I think that the decision speaks most eloquently regarding her perception of the compromises/betrayals she will have to concede to the EU negotiators and a fear of those parliamentary elements that might have had leverage over her tiny majority. If I were a NI Unionist or a 'swivel-eyed' tory Brexiteer I'd be very concerned at May's desire to free herself from reliance upon their commons support.
> Sure, the timing may well conveniently mask the imminent announcements of prosecutions, but (with hindsight!) this 6 weeks, including the French Pres. election) was the only obvious 'downtime' that there would be before the EU starts to negotiate.



What remains to be seen is whether May is seeking a bigger majority to outflank the hard brexit wing of the tory party or the soft brexit wing. Given her extremely vague pronouncements on the subject thus far, the latter seems most likely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> What remains to be seen is whether May is seeking a bigger majority to outflank the hard brexit wing of the tory party or the soft brexit wing. Given her extremely vague pronouncements on the subject thus far, the latter seems most likely.


She has what little heart she has set on a diamond brexit: super-hard


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> She has what little heart she has set on a diamond brexit: super-hard



You're probably right, alas. It's still pretty bewildering that she's called this election ostensibly to gain a mandate for her vision of brexit, when everything we know about said vision could fit on the back of a fag packet.

 Makes an interesting change of pace from parties standing with one set of policies then enacting a totally different set once elected I suppose. Stand on a platform of nothing, then do whatever the fuck you like.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> What remains to be seen is whether May is seeking a bigger majority to outflank the hard brexit wing of the tory party or the soft brexit wing. Given her extremely vague pronouncements on the subject thus far, the latter seems most likely.


Good point, but with 400 seats she'll have all bases covered.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> Yeah, it seems obvious now (I dunno why it hasn't occurred to me before) that allowing the headbangers to steer brexit was the price of leadsom stepping aside. There's a lot of reasons why now, including the expenses stuff - but I think chiefly it's about shifting the balance of power within the Tory party itself.



Leadsom wasn't holding many cards tbf. I always assumed she took the dive in exchange for an easy cabinet job.


----------



## gosub (Apr 24, 2017)

Deleted due to lack of trust in source.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 24, 2017)

Sturgeon going for the 'Flap-election' line.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 24, 2017)

gosub said:


>



I've seen this doing the rounds but is there a credible source for it?


----------



## gosub (Apr 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've seen this doing the rounds but is there a credible source for it?



Nope.   And too busy to follow it up :

 Avon and Somerset, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon and Cornwall, Gloucestershire, Greater Manchester, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, West Mercia, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire are the police forces...

Conservative MPs and staff may still face election fraud charges confirms Fysh and Heappey...
Channel 4 give :Amanda Milling, for Cannock Chase; Michael Ellis for Northampton North; Stuart Andrew for Pudsey, Horsforth & Aireborough; David Nuttall for Bury North; North Cornwall for Scott Mann; George Eustace for Cambourne and Redruth; Kevin Foster for Torbay; Oliver Colville for Plymouth Sutton and Devenport; and Graham Evans for Weaver Vale.

a bit more colouring in and that might switch from a random untitled jpeg of MP's into a list.

GOWER!!!  Heddlu De Cymru isn't on the the list of police forces!


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 25, 2017)

Tories wont hand over internal bullying report to the police.

Conservative party ignored police requests to hand over internal bullying report


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 25, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Tories wont hand over internal bullying report to the police.
> 
> Conservative party ignored police requests to hand over internal bullying report


Yeh there's a thread about that

Tory youth activists bully fellow Tory activist till he commits suicide


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 25, 2017)

Smangus said:


> So how will civil service purdah affect this?




I'd like to know this too -- I ought to know really, but I simply don't.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2017)

Shit must be nearing the fan if Kuenssberg is compelled to report it...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Shit must be nearing the fan if Kuenssberg is compelled to report it...



yeh but will they make like the fbi?


----------



## pesh (Apr 26, 2017)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but will they make like the fbi?


Who knows...but if he is prosecuted we'll be treated to more re-runs of that delicious moment as the returning officer announced his victory when Falange looked like someone had knocked his pint over, Murray looked like the prick that he is and Mackinlay rubbed his hands in glee like a greasy little estate agent who'd just lifted a huge commission.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 26, 2017)

doing the rounds on tweeter today


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Shit must be nearing the fan if Kuenssberg is compelled to report it...



Is that CPS source, the dustbin into which the file will immediately be placed? Because nothing is going to happen with this. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

Smangus said:


> I know , lets have another election before they've finished investigating the last one, quick before no one notices.....


I don't see that as the reason for this farc - I mean snap election. 

If the CPS intend to prosecute, then they'll prosecute regardless if these people get re elected surely?


----------



## squirrelp (Apr 27, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> I don't see that as the reason for this farc - I mean snap election.
> 
> If the CPS intend to prosecute, then they'll prosecute regardless if these people get re elected surely?


If there was no general election then there would be pressure to hold by-elections in the fraud seats, that would be a total nightmare for the conservatives to deal with.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> If there was no general election then there would be pressure to hold by-elections in the fraud seats, that would be a total nightmare for the conservatives to deal with.


Was there any pressure before the election was announced?

Is it any more pressure than that of a general election?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 27, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Was there any pressure before the election was announced?
> 
> Is it any more pressure than that of a general election?


harry callahan said a good man knows his limitations.

squirrelp is not a good man.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> harry callahan said a good man knows his limitations.
> 
> squirrelp is not a good man.


but is he a squirrel?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 27, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> but is he a squirrel?


no he's squirrelp


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 27, 2017)

p of the family squirrel


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 27, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Was there any pressure before the election was announced?
> 
> Is it any more pressure than that of a general election?



With a general election there's all sorts of other fuss going on. A byelection being held specifically because of electoral fraud is going to be a lot harder to bury.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> With a general election there's all sorts of other fuss going on. A byelection being held specifically because of electoral fraud is going to be a lot harder to bury.


Sure.

But I have to say I still think that, if the CPS is so minded, a general election won't stop them from building a case. 

They won't of course. Takes more than a few quid over spent on an election to unseat these greasy bastards, I fear.


----------



## teqniq (May 8, 2017)

Up to 20 sitting Tory MPs may be under police investigation for electoral fraud



> The Crown Prosecution Service is expected to announce before the General election whether a number of Tory MPs will be criminally charged over the alleged 2015 election expenses scandal....



Not going to be holding out much hope though, if Bliar can get the SFO to drop the Saudi bribes case what chances here?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> With a general election there's all sorts of other fuss going on. A byelection being held specifically because of electoral fraud is going to be a lot harder to bury.



It's not just about that, it's also a way of claiming legitimacy - "yes, the last election was crooked, but we've had a new one now and the British people have spoken". Otherwise people might legitimately question their right to rule.


----------



## Who PhD (May 9, 2017)

According to the mirror they will be announcing plans to prosecute (or not) this week.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> According to the mirror they will be announcing plans to prosecute (or not) this week.



ITV says tomorrow.

*drumroll*


----------



## Dogsauce (May 10, 2017)

The BBC report on it makes it sound like it's all
about a minor administrative cock-up, not deliberate cheating on a national scale. Very tempered language. No agenda there.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> The BBC report on it makes it sound like it's all
> about a minor administrative cock-up, not deliberate cheating on a national scale. Very tempered language. No agenda there.



It's hard to reconcile 'by mistake' with 'systematic and nationwide' isn't it?


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's hard to reconcile 'by mistake' with 'systematic and nationwide' isn't it?


Not for the state broadcaster; May said it was an administrative error, so an administrative error it is then.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2017)

My prediction is still the same: a handful of campaign managers or similar expendables will face charges but no MPs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2017)

> BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg says senior Conservative sources think it's unlikely the reporting mistakes will reach the hurdle for criminal prosecution.



It's not a mistake if you do it on purpose. Kuenssberg isn't even pretending to pretend is she?


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2017)

So how many prosecutions do we think there will be? That's right, zero.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 10, 2017)

I'd be surprised if anything comes of it, however it would be great if May called this election due to this scandal , got away with it , and then lost the election.

A bit of wishful thinking there tho


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 10, 2017)

It's worth reading this article, gives some background to the muddled & out of date laws, separate ones governing national & local spending, thus providing loopholes & wiggle room.

Basically they have to prove intent at local level, which will be hard or impossible, the clear defence is the local agents & MPs were acting in good faith on advice from the national party that battle buses are always declared at national level.



> The facts that certain expenses were treated as national expenses or not included in any returns seem beyond doubt. This needs no further investigation as such. The real issue is whether there is evidence as to the intentions of various people involved. Were they up to no good? Or was there a muddle? Or were they following established practices or national party guidance in good faith?
> 
> Unless compelling evidence emerges of wrongful and dishonest intention – either on a personal level or as part of a conspiracy – then it is hard to see any charges or criminal prosecutions in respect of the allegations as they currently stand.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> It's worth reading this article, gives some background to the muddled & out of date laws, separate ones governing national & local spending, thus providing loopholes & wiggle room.
> 
> Basically they have to prove intent at local level, which will be hard or impossible, the clear defence is the local agents & MPs were acting in good faith on advice from the national party that battle buses are always declared at national level.


How much is it worth paying to read the article? The ft won't let me read it w/o paying


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> How much is it worth paying to read the article? The ft won't let me read it w/o paying



That's odd, it was free to read the other day, hang on a minute...

Stick this into google:
"The law and politics of the Conservative election expense allegations"
- the first link it returns to me gives free access to the article.


----------



## Fingers (May 10, 2017)

No charges. What a surprise.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 10, 2017)

BBC reporting no charges, no evidence of intent at local levels.

Although Thanet South remains an open case.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2017)

And an open sewer.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 10, 2017)

The CPS has announced no Tory candidates will be charged over electoral fraud claims


----------



## sim667 (May 10, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> The CPS has announced no Tory candidates will be charged over electoral fraud claims



As if that wasn't expected.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 10, 2017)

yeah indeed no suprises there


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2017)

And a green light to pull the same bullshit this time round.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 10, 2017)

What is clear is that battle buses are normally declared as national expenses, by every party.

But, the difficult here was the Tories stuffed their buses with campaigners, so incurred far higher expenses. If those campaigners had only handed out national party election material, there would be no case to answer, but they handed out local candidate specific material, thus the claim that expenses should have been declared locally.

However, the CPS had to prove intent by local officials, who most likely don't know the full details of the law, so would take advice from the national party. If the national party told them battle buses are always declared at national level, they would accept that, and therefore would be acting in good faith, no intent can be proved.

Now election agents will be more aware of the law, they will have to be more careful, as they will not be able to fall back on the defence of acting in good faith.

What is clear is we need a new law covering both national & local expenses, having two separate laws muddles the waters & creates loopholes - the law is an ass.


----------



## Teaboy (May 10, 2017)

Hmmm. I wonder how many other crimes you can get away with by simply claiming you didn't know it was illegal?  Turns out ignorance is a perfectly decent defence for some.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 10, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Hmmm. I wonder how many other crimes you can get away with by simply claiming you didn't know it was illegal?  Turns out ignorance is a perfectly decent defence for some.



There're plenty of laws that require 'intent' to be proven, for example the law governing murder, where intent to cause either death or serious injury is required, otherwise it's manslaughter.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> There're plenty of laws that require 'intent' to be proven, for example the law governing murder, where intent to cause either death or serious injury is required, otherwise it's manslaughter.



 Not a very apt comparison.  You can get longer for manslaughter than murder.  Name  a law you can  Break and use non-intent  arising out of ignorance as a defence.


----------



## Teaboy (May 10, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> There're plenty of laws that require 'intent' to be proven, for example the law governing murder, where intent to cause either death or serious injury is required, otherwise it's manslaughter.



Yeah, if you can't prove intent it falls under a different crime, but still a crime all the same.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 10, 2017)

xenon said:


> Not a very apt comparison.  You can get longer for manslaughter than murder.  Name  a law you can  Break and use non-intent  arising out of ignorance as a defence.





Teaboy said:


> Yeah, if you can't prove intent it falls under a different crime, but still a crime all the same.



OK, let's go with the Theft Act, which requires intent to 'permanently deprive someone of their property', I am sure there's loads of different laws that require intent to be proved, but I am no lawyer.

The fact is, in this case, it does require intent to be proven, whether you or I consider it right or wrong.

Personally I want reform of the election laws, I am in no way defending the current out of date laws.


----------



## Raheem (May 10, 2017)

Intent isn't the same thing as understanding of the law. You don't get a manslaughter conviction by claiming you didn't know it was illegal to kill someone.

Ignorance of the law isn't supposed to be a defence to anything. In this case it seems like you haven't broken the law if you're boss reassures you that what you're doing is OK, and the reassuring boss is also not breaking the law. Which does seem to make having the law a bit pointless.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2017)

Strange that different laws governing different things might have different criteria isn't it?


----------



## Teaboy (May 10, 2017)

killer b said:


> Strange that different laws governing different things might have different criteria isn't it?



Certainly when it comes to those who make the laws.


----------



## teqniq (May 10, 2017)

Tories scrap plans for £100bn luxury prison after CPS announces no prosecution over election spending


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2017)

I'm glad this is over now - it's been fairly dispiriting the number of people thinking this was some kind of magic bullet. Yesterday a guy in my office told me that if the prosecutions went ahead and they were found guilty, then all legislation passed since 2015 - including the EU referendum - was illegitimate and would be scrapped. 

That's probably at the far end of what people have been imagining, but there's been a huge amount of fantastical thinking about this.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 10, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm glad this is over now - it's been fairly dispiriting the number of people thinking this was some kind of magic bullet. Yesterday a guy in my office told me that if the prosecutions went ahead and they were found guilty, then all legislation passed since 2015 - including the EU referendum - was illegitimate and would be scrapped.
> 
> That's probably at the far end of what people have been imagining, but there's been a huge amount of fantastical thinking about this.


I've seen people who I thought had a bit more nous posting a fb meme about the election being called to distract from the election spending scandal. That doesn't even make sense but it's been all over fb.


----------



## The Pale King (May 10, 2017)

Just an everyday story of elite corruption.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 10, 2017)

Tory Election Fraud: I've been a Westminster Election Agent enough times to know that it does not take nearly 2 years for plod to  hum and ahh over some receipts.

Neither is it a job for Columbo to work out who is responsible for porkie pies regarding expenditure: The agent signs their name and address on the legal paperwork.

It's a field laden with grey areas, but I was confident that C4 News had uncovered evidence of blatant trampling over those areas. Other agents I have spoken to from various parties share this confidence.

So what we have here is the long-grassing of the investigation followed by a clear signal that the laws on expenditure are next to useless. The party with the most money is best placed to take advantage of that and now knows what they can get away with.

This is a very bad day for such democratic process and accountability as we have.

P.s - the CPS announcement has been made the day before the close of nominations. They have twiddled their thumbs and acted at the best time to suit said party, so as to clear the air just in time for candidates who have been under the microscope.

 The chances of this date being coincidence are vanishingly small. A cynic might suppose that the CPS have actively worked with the governing party on this, thus politicising themselves. Cynics are often correct aren't they?


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 10, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> Just an everyday story of elite corruption.



Or just a loophole that was open to every party, but the Tory cunts pushed it to the limit. 

At the end of the day, all the main national parties have battle buses, all declare those expenses as a national expense.


----------



## The Pale King (May 10, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Or just a loophole that was open to every party, but the Tory cunts pushed it to the limit.
> 
> At the end of the day, all the main national parties have battle buses, all declare those expenses as a national expense.



Only cunts in a position to push it to the limit. Perhaps the only cunts who had to, given their lack of enthused campaigning cunts on the ground.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 10, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Or just a loophole that was open to every party, but the Tory cunts pushed it to the limit.
> 
> At the end of the day, all the main national parties have battle buses, all declare those expenses as a national expense.



The Tories needed to bus those people into marginals as there weren't enough cunts available locally to do their dirty work. They knew exactly what they were doing. Other parties didn't have this problem because they have actual local activists behind them.


----------



## Who PhD (May 10, 2017)

I think we can be sure that if these guys had been prosecuted, they'd just find other wankers to take their place on the gravy train. I doubt there's a shortage of grapsing cunts in the ranks


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 10, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> I doubt there's a shortage of grapsing cunts in the ranks



isn't being a grasping cunt an essential requirement?


----------



## Who PhD (May 10, 2017)

Puddy_Tat said:


> isn't being a grasping cunt an essential requirement?


If you want to be a tory


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 10, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> If you want to be a tory



that's what i meant


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2017)




----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2017)

Ha ha


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 108235


a little more in the mirror Tory Craig Mackinlay charged over alleged election fraud


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> a little more in the mirror Tory Craig Mackinlay charged over alleged election fraud


Marion Little & agent charged as well, I think.
Back of the net!


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 2, 2017)

Props to the CPS for the timing


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> Props to the CPS for the timing


Be the Comey defence, would have looked worse to delay.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> Props to the CPS for the timing



Starmer calling in some old favours.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2017)

Just 3 weeks ago vermin backbenchers were calling the Electoral Commission enquiry a "politically motivated witch-hunt".


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Just 3 weeks ago vermin backbenchers were calling the Electoral Commission enquiry a "politically motivated witch-hunt".
> 
> View attachment 108253



They still are. This is the response today (from the beeb live feed)

The party's response reads:

“The legal authorities have previously cleared Conservative candidates who faced numerous politically motivated and unfounded complaints over the Party’s national Battlebus campaigning.

“We continue to believe that this remaining allegation is unfounded. Our candidate has made clear that there was no intention by him or his campaigners to engage in any inappropriate activity. We believe that they have done nothing wrong, and we are confident that this will be proven as the matter progresses.

“The individuals remain innocent unless otherwise proven guilty in a court of law. The press, parties and those on social media should be aware of the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act and the strict liability rules against publishing anything which would prejudice the course of justice.

“There is a broad consensus that election law is fragmented, confused and unclear, with two different sets of legislation, and poor guidance from the Electoral Commission. Conservatives are committed to strengthening electoral law to tackle the real and proven cases of corruption that were exposed in Tower Hamlets in 2015.”


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Jun 2, 2017)

The wheels certainly are falling off the election bus.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> They still are. This is the response today (from the beeb live feed)
> 
> The party's response reads:
> 
> ...



Well if they say they never done it that's good enough for me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

Rosemary Jest said:


> The wheels certainly are falling off the election bus.


the wheels on the bus are falling off
falling off
falling off
the wheels on the bus are falling off
all day long


----------



## brogdale (Jun 22, 2017)

_Tory Election Fraud 2: Judgment Day_


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 22, 2017)

Dear oh Dear.

Inside the secretive Tory election call centre




doubt the Tories will tough that out, this time.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 22, 2017)

If only they could have taped them canvassing on June 8th on behalf of the tory candidate for South Thanet.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 22, 2017)

steeplejack said:


> Dear oh Dear.
> 
> Inside the secretive Tory election call centre
> 
> ...



Do we have any idea what the consequences, if any, of this might be?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 22, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Do we have any idea what the consequences, if any, of this might be?


Doesn't look like it could be pinned on/related to individual candidates, so no by-elections. Just the party or scumbag or runs the company getting possible criminal charges? From what it said at the end of the clip both the party and the feller look ready to grass each other up.
((((Honour amongst cunts)))))


----------



## Who PhD (Jun 22, 2017)

brogdale said:


> If only they could have taped them canvassing on June 8th on behalf of the tory candidate for South Thanet.


If only bringing this to light will actually achieve anything


----------



## agricola (Jun 22, 2017)

TBH its amazing that they are so useless that they use a firm in Neath, which uses zero-hour labour, and expect that it won't come out.


----------



## Ptolemy (Jun 22, 2017)

BBC does not seem to be reporting it - surprise, surprise.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 22, 2017)

im assuming that there was more than one of these call centres? seeing as this one was focused on welsh seats. 
Anyway - tory tossrag who ran the call centre could well end up convicted - and maybe whoever commissioned him from the welsh tory party - but beyond that they will just deny cuplability. "we asked him just to carry out market research and he took it upon himself  -etc etc " must have cost fuck ton of money though,


----------



## ddraig (Jun 23, 2017)

Just watched this
Very interesting and desperate, but as posts above doubt anyone/anything major will be done


----------



## brogdale (Jan 9, 2019)

ddraig said:


> Just watched this
> Very interesting and desperate, but as posts above doubt anyone/anything major will be done


Mackinlay found not guilty but Senior tory party worker Marion Little, found guilty of two counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Judge has already told her she will not face custodial sentence due to her husband's illness.

Conservative MP Craig Mackinlay not guilty of 2015 general election offences


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2019)

So an offence was assisted but nobody committed the actual offence?


----------

