prima facie case of electoral fraud
Discussion
Only read the intro and summary so far, but this looks like dynamite to me.
Matrix said:
We consider that there is a prima facie case that the following electoral offences were
committed by Vote Leave in the EU referendum campaign and that these require urgent
investigation so that consideration can be given to whether to refer the case to the Crown
Prosecution Service for a decision on whether to prosecute:
a. that Vote Leave’s “responsible person”, David Alan Halsall, authorised expenses to
be incurred by Vote Leave where he knew or reasonably ought to have known that
expenses would be incurred in excess of that limit, contrary to s 118(2) of PPERA;
b. that Vote Leave committed the same offence;
c. that Mr Halsall delivered an expenses return which did not comply with the
statutory requirements under s 120(2)-(3) of PPERA, contrary to s 122(4)(b) PPERA;
and
d. that Mr Halsall knowingly or recklessly made a false declaration in the declaration
submitted with the Vote Leave return, and/or that the requirements as to a lawful
return were contravened during the period in which he was the responsible person,
contrary to s 123(4)(a) and/or (b) PPERA
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/culture-media-and-sport/Background%20paper%20-%202016%20Referendum%20Expenses%20Opinion%20-%20Matrix%20Chambers.pdfcommitted by Vote Leave in the EU referendum campaign and that these require urgent
investigation so that consideration can be given to whether to refer the case to the Crown
Prosecution Service for a decision on whether to prosecute:
a. that Vote Leave’s “responsible person”, David Alan Halsall, authorised expenses to
be incurred by Vote Leave where he knew or reasonably ought to have known that
expenses would be incurred in excess of that limit, contrary to s 118(2) of PPERA;
b. that Vote Leave committed the same offence;
c. that Mr Halsall delivered an expenses return which did not comply with the
statutory requirements under s 120(2)-(3) of PPERA, contrary to s 122(4)(b) PPERA;
and
d. that Mr Halsall knowingly or recklessly made a false declaration in the declaration
submitted with the Vote Leave return, and/or that the requirements as to a lawful
return were contravened during the period in which he was the responsible person,
contrary to s 123(4)(a) and/or (b) PPERA
More like a damp squib. The problem for any "noise" about expenses by vote leave, is that the remain government spent was it £9M just before the vote was called on that leaflet to every household. No way to claim the moral high ground for spending a few £Ks when, even though it might "officially" have been outside the campaigning time window t'other side spent £Ms
Must admit I am getting somewhat bored of the constant moaning by the remainers about the result, and I suspect if they do force another referendum they could be in for a surprise because all they are doing is annoying voters and making them more likely to vote leave.
What remainers should be doing is negotiating with the EU for sensible reform as thats what most people want.
Even if there is a case on electoral over spending it doesnt mean the vote will be redone, and anyway perhaps the oter side just havent been caught
What remainers should be doing is negotiating with the EU for sensible reform as thats what most people want.
Even if there is a case on electoral over spending it doesnt mean the vote will be redone, and anyway perhaps the oter side just havent been caught
I dont car and neither does anyone I know (the major majority of people that I know having voted leave) because its irrelevant what was spent by either side - I made my mind up many many years ago as did many of my friends that because of the way the EU was going politically and economically that I did not want anything to do with it. As events & actions have unfolded since then and particularly since the result the EU have served up constant reminders that my decision was the correct one for me and my children.
Campaigns of spin, bulls
t and lies (from both sides) of any vote do not influence me on whom to vote for. Facts that i find myself influence me to vote.
If the overspend is just a few thousand, it is a small % of the total, hardly likely to have any effect. If they had overspent by several million, and as a % that is 50 or more of that allowed, they have a genuine case.
t and lies (from both sides) of any vote do not influence me on whom to vote for. Facts that i find myself influence me to vote.If the overspend is just a few thousand, it is a small % of the total, hardly likely to have any effect. If they had overspent by several million, and as a % that is 50 or more of that allowed, they have a genuine case.
Chrisgr31 said:
Must admit I am getting somewhat bored of the constant moaning by the remainers about the result, and I suspect if they do force another referendum they could be in for a surprise because all they are doing is annoying voters and making them more likely to vote leave.
What remainers should be doing is negotiating with the EU for sensible reform as thats what most people want.
Even if there is a case on electoral over spending it doesnt mean the vote will be redone, and anyway perhaps the oter side just havent been caught
I expect you're right that many people wanted reform although I don't exactly know what reform. However you can't negotiate reform after declaring you're leaving.What remainers should be doing is negotiating with the EU for sensible reform as thats what most people want.
Even if there is a case on electoral over spending it doesnt mean the vote will be redone, and anyway perhaps the oter side just havent been caught
timrud said:
If people who wanted to remain really cared about the country, they would be trying to get the best deal from the departure negotiations.
Instead they just want it to go as badly as possible, just so they can say they were right. I'm sure their children will thank them for that.
The only people who can negotiate are the PM and those she has appointed. So you are saying that May and entourage are disrupting the negotiations so that they can't agree any of the advantages we currently have so that the parliamentary vote will be against accepting the deal and then they will have to put the deal to the country?Instead they just want it to go as badly as possible, just so they can say they were right. I'm sure their children will thank them for that.
Derek Smith said:
keirik said:
Most people don't care.
And that is a problem. If the suggestions are true, we have had illegal use of data, deliberate breaking of the rules on spending, and no one gives a damn.Perhaps we deserve May. Perhaps we deserve brexit. A few good men and all that.
Electoral Commission investigating both sides, but don't let that stop the whining.
It must really ps off Remainers that they had every advantage, spent about the same, that's without including the 9 million the Govt spent, and they still lost. All they had to do was come up with a semi sensible argument for the EU, instead they came up with Project Fear most of which was clearly suspect.
Against that a shambles of a Leave campaign, the only sensible campaign of how to do it deliberately ignored due to howls from the anti immigration Ukipper element, and ignored by Remain as it would knock even more holes in the Remain arguments, ignored by the Government likewise.
Now it's twaddle like Facebook sold our data so the result was affected. Just give over.
It must really p
s off Remainers that they had every advantage, spent about the same, that's without including the 9 million the Govt spent, and they still lost. All they had to do was come up with a semi sensible argument for the EU, instead they came up with Project Fear most of which was clearly suspect.Against that a shambles of a Leave campaign, the only sensible campaign of how to do it deliberately ignored due to howls from the anti immigration Ukipper element, and ignored by Remain as it would knock even more holes in the Remain arguments, ignored by the Government likewise.
Now it's twaddle like Facebook sold our data so the result was affected. Just give over.
Russian Troll Bot said:
I'm more concerned about individuals and organisations spending tens of millions with the sole aim of overturning a democratic decision.
Nothing illegal in that, if it is done legally. In fact, it is democracy in action. It does seem rather cake and eat it: it's a democratic decision but you don't want democracy to be used by others.Derek Smith said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
I'm more concerned about individuals and organisations spending tens of millions with the sole aim of overturning a democratic decision.
Nothing illegal in that, if it is done legally. In fact, it is democracy in action. It does seem rather cake and eat it: it's a democratic decision but you don't want democracy to be used by others.f1rob said:
We won
You lost
Get over it !
P.s I didn't vote to "negotiate" I an many others voted to leave plain an simple
You’ve no idea what other people ‘voted for’.You lost
Get over it !
P.s I didn't vote to "negotiate" I an many others voted to leave plain an simple
Every time I see or hear a Brexiteer’s view, it seems to assume that he/she speaks for the rest of his/her ilk.
The truth is, there are as many ideas about what the vote was for as there are opinions on what the end result should be.
I was ready to tick either the ‘Yes’ or the ‘No’ boxes right up to the second I made my final choice. To think that I would suddenly gain insight into exactly what drove others to vote one way or the other entirely dependent on which box I eventually ticked myself is utterly ludicrous.
No one knows what drove any individual to vote the way they did, yet so many people seem to think that because they voted in a particular manner they automatically know what drove others to vote the same way they did.
It’s completely bonkers.
Edited by PorkInsider on Sunday 15th April 06:01
mr rusty said:
More like a damp squib. The problem for any "noise" about expenses by vote leave, is that the remain government spent was it £9M just before the vote was called on that leaflet to every household. No way to claim the moral high ground for spending a few £Ks when, even though it might "officially" have been outside the campaigning time window t'other side spent £Ms
Don't forget all the free support for remain by a biased and determined media.And yet remain still lost. About time they stopped trying to undermine this country and all got behind our government to get the best result, rather than trying to block them and be obstructive at every opportunity.
Russian Troll Bot said:
Derek Smith said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
I'm more concerned about individuals and organisations spending tens of millions with the sole aim of overturning a democratic decision.
Nothing illegal in that, if it is done legally. In fact, it is democracy in action. It does seem rather cake and eat it: it's a democratic decision but you don't want democracy to be used by others.Perhaps people didn't realise that voting to leave meant a hard brexit. It certainly wasn't on the voting paper yet May, Mogg, et al, say that we did vote for a hard brexit. Perhaps the lies that they are telling makes people want to vote again. After all Johnson mentioned in the leave campaign the Norwegian option and the Iceland way. Perhaps they believed the £350m a day or whatever and didn't realise it would cost us money and that the NHS is likely to suffer from brexit.
Perhaps people believed Cameron when he said he'd stay. Perhaps people didn't realised the government would be so pathetically stupid not to have a plan of action, not even enough trained people.
We live in a parliamentary democracy. Read up on what that means. Of course there's nothing wrong in a re-run. It is something that could have been done if the vote was to stay.
Derek Smith said:
Er, I think that's the point. People can change their minds. Votes aren't forever; they are there until the next one. You'll just have to accept that if there's another vote and it goes against you.
Ironically there was a vote in 1975, it went against the way I voted, yet I accepted it, had a refreshing hot beverage and got on with life. Forty years later we had another vote in 2016, however it seems that some are unable to accept that result, like spoilt children.Votes aren't forever indeed. They are there until the next one. If there is another one and that goes against you, will you accept that this time? On current evidence, doubtful.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff