|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Wed 11 Dec 22:11
A there we have that impartial BBC at it again.
BBC’S LAURA KUENSSBERG ACCUSED OF BREAKING ELECTORAL LAW AFTER REVEALING CONFIDENTIAL POSTAL VOTE INFORMATION

The BBC’s Chief Political Editor, Laura Kuenssberg, has become embroiled in yet another General Election reporting scandal after appearing to break Electoral Law by revealing confidential information about how Postal Voters had cast their vote prior to the results being revealed tomorrow.
Speaking during a seemingly impromptu piece to camera on the BBC’s Politics Live programme, Kuenssberg claimed that the postal votes were “looking pretty grim for Labour in lots of parts of the country“.
Kuenssberg claimed:
“The Postal Votes, of course, have already arrived. The parties – they’re not meant to look at it – but they do kind of get a hint. And on both sides people are telling me that the postal votes that are in are looking pretty grim for Labour in a lot of parts of the country.”
Post Edited (Wed 11 Dec 22:14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Wed 11 Dec 22:46
She needs her ar5e punted into the Atlantic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 11 Dec 22:50
These votes must now be declared null and void
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Wed 11 Dec 23:04
Announcing anything prior to the vote should as Bp said should then be anulled asit can affect the real vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 11 Dec 23:33
With the Davidson case, it wasn't clear to me that Ruth had broken any law; similarly it is not clear to me what law has been breached here. (It's not an offence (yet) to be a woman or to work for the BBC).
Perhaps someone could provide chapter and verse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Wed 11 Dec 23:48
She has absolutely broken electoral law as have whatever politicians told her this information.
If found guilty it actually carries a custodial sentence.
Of course nothing will happen though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 12 Dec 00:06
I think that's what McCaig is asking. What actual law has she broken? Specifics of the law in question.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 12 Dec 00:35
Postal voting, previously known as absent voting, is a licence for electoral fraud, so I wouldn’t blame Kuenssberg for much more than reporting on it.
Absentee voting used to be reserved for armed forces overseas or those who were incapacitated, but has now available ‘on demand’ and has expanded to alarmingly high levels across the UK. There is no policeman on duty inside each house to ensure fair play; in fact we don’t even know who is putting the ‘X’ in the box. The system is obviously open to abuse and therefore will be abused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Thu 12 Dec 02:24
Quote:
McCaig`s Tower, Wed 11 Dec 23:33
With the Davidson case, it wasn't clear to me that Ruth had broken any law; similarly it is not clear to me what law has been breached here. (It's not an offence (yet) to be a woman or to work for the BBC).
Perhaps someone could provide chapter and verse?

Home UK News Conservative Party News
UK NEWS
CONSERVATIVE PARTY NEWS
LABOUR PARTY UK LATEST NEWS
BBC’S LAURA KUENSSBERG ACCUSED OF BREAKING ELECTORAL LAW AFTER REVEALING CONFIDENTIAL POSTAL VOTE INFORMATION
BY
TOM D. ROGERS
-
11TH DECEMBER 2019

The BBC’s Chief Political Editor, Laura Kuenssberg, has become embroiled in yet another General Election reporting scandal after appearing to break Electoral Law by revealing confidential information about how Postal Voters had cast their vote prior to the results being revealed tomorrow.
Speaking during a seemingly impromptu piece to camera on the BBC’s Politics Live programme, Kuenssberg claimed that the postal votes were “looking pretty grim for Labour in lots of parts of the country“.
Kuenssberg claimed:
“The Postal Votes, of course, have already arrived. The parties – they’re not meant to look at it – but they do kind of get a hint. And on both sides people are telling me that the postal votes that are in are looking pretty grim for Labour in a lot of parts of the country.”
Revealing how people may have voted based on informaton from opened Postal Votes before the 10pm polling day cutoff is illegal because it could influence the way others choose to vote.
The Representation of the People Act 1983 clearly defines the law, stating:
“No person shall, in the case of an election to which this section applies, publish before the poll is closed […] any statement relating to the way in which voters have voted at the election where that statement is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information given by voters after they have voted, or b) any forecast as to the result of the election which is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information so given. “
And as Sammer states above we have no idea who is actually filling in these Postal votes.
Everyone goes on about indirect insecure voting online would be. Yet we are happy to allow Postal votes to continue with little or no checks and balances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 12 Dec 08:19
Thanks moviescot.
That looks like a quote from RoPA 83 as amended - Section 66A (Prohibition on publication of exit polls).
Not sure the comments made are based on information given by voters. Journalists should be clued up on the law and know what they can and cannot say.
IIRC the Davisdson incident related to comments made after the polls had closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Thu 12 Dec 08:42
Why aren't postal votes opened after 10pm tonight?
If the system allows them to be opened before 10pm then that is the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 12 Dec 08:44
Johnsons threats against the BBC have obviously worked and now Kuenssberg is trying to lure casual tory voters into complacency and to perhaps not bothering to vote.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 12 Dec 09:01
Quote:
aaaaaaaaaargh, Thu 12 Dec 08:42
Why aren't postal votes opened after 10pm tonight?
If the system allows them to be opened before 10pm then that is the problem.
Probably for efficiency. Agree they should really wait. I'd consider it worse for the Tories in this case as there's a risk for them that people assume "job done" and fail to vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 12 Dec 11:13
Indeed Jake. The beeb trying to help deny the Tories a majority? Personally I think it's a reporter making the mistake of not being able to keep quiet when she has a bit of secret news.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Thu 12 Dec 12:03
In the case of Ruth Davidson, she hadn't broken any laws as she announced I after the polls had closed.
Not so with Laura Kuenssberg who gave information away that could influence voting behaviour before the polls open.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 12 Dec 13:44
There are a lot of reports of people who applied for a postal vote not having received the necessary paperwork in time for them to register their votes. No one seems to be sure if the problem lies with the various councils responsible for issuing the forms or with Royal Mail for not delivering them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Thu 12 Dec 16:06
Quote:
aaaaaaaaaargh, Thu 12 Dec 08:42
Why aren't postal votes opened after 10pm tonight?
If the system allows them to be opened before 10pm then that is the problem.
Postal votes are opened early so they can check the signatures against the one on the postal vote application.
They are not meant to look who people have voted for but the politicians who witness the postal vote opening try to peak.
Ruth Davidson said what the voting samples looked like before the voting had even started on the day.
This was illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Thu 12 Dec 17:07
My friend didn't get his postal vote, or have sufficient time to set up a proxy. so definitely at least one casesadindiefreak wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MDCCCLXXXV
Date: Thu 12 Dec 21:38
Serious question , why cant people vote online rather than postal votes?
 East End Park is a symbol of all that is DAFC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Thu 12 Dec 21:58
Would make sense as even checking pension needs all sorts of proof to do so for votes means it is real votes.Postal is not as secure.
If people are abroad they have their passports and know their postcode etc so voting secure and accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sat 14 Dec 20:27
I thought postal votes had to be held undisclosed until all ballot boxes were returned to the central count location and then added to those from polling booths ?
If they have been seen prior to this the Returning Officer has to be held to account.
As for abuse of the voting system - the same can apply at Polling Stations.
If a.n.other turns up at a PS then he/she can claim to be anybody and vote - unless the assumed real person has already done so - because providing a Polling Card is not necessary.
In practice fraudsters would want to get in very early to avoid that scenario though.
Incidentally, in the past people abroad for genuine business reasons could apply for a postal vote, it wasn't only restricted to HM Armed Forces and government employess outwith the UK,
Disabled etc. would have a Proxy Vote.
Post Edited (Sat 14 Dec 20:32)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Sat 14 Dec 21:45
I spent Thursday working in a polling station, and the one big surprise was the number of people on the register marked as voting by post. It's not something I'd ever want to do as it seems so open to fraud, but it looked like maybe 20% had chosen to vote this way.
The verification stage that allows unofficial sight of how someone has voted prior to the count just seems wrong. It must surely be possible to have some kind of sealed packet where the signature, etc. are on the outside, and the actual vote is sealed inside until it is opened with the rest of the papers at the count. Maybe there's a reason this isn't the case, but I'm struggling to see why it can't be this way to prevent situations such as this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sat 14 Dec 21:45
Quote:
veteraneastender, Sat 14 Dec 20:27
I thought postal votes had to be held undisclosed until all ballot boxes were returned to the central count location and then added to those from polling booths ?
If they have been seen prior to this the Returning Officer has to be held to account.
As for abuse of the voting system - the same can apply at Polling Stations.
If a.n.other turns up at a PS then he/she can claim to be anybody and vote - unless the assumed real person has already done so - because providing a Polling Card is not necessary.
In practice fraudsters would want to get in very early to avoid that scenario though.
Incidentally, in the past people abroad for genuine business reasons could apply for a postal vote, it wasn't only restricted to HM Armed Forces and government employess outwith the UK,
Disabled etc. would have a Proxy Vote.
Postal votes are opened early to check that the signature is correct. The votes are not counted at this stage. It's done this way so that actual count is not delayed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 14 Dec 21:57
As I said before, the postal voting system is an incitement to corruption. It is obviously being abused. How is it that 20% of the electorate have suddenly become invalids? One in 5 votes is not overseen by a policeman? Why bother having them at voting booths then?
It's a nonsense and should be dropped forewith. It has serious implications for any future Scottish Independence ballot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sat 14 Dec 23:02
Quote:
sammer, Sat 14 Dec 21:57
As I said before, the postal voting system is an incitement to corruption. It is obviously being abused. How is it that 20% of the electorate have suddenly become invalids? One in 5 votes is not overseen by a policeman? Why bother having them at voting booths then?
It's a nonsense and should be dropped forewith. It has serious implications for any future Scottish Independence ballot.
Yes they are open to massive abuse. They should only be offered to people who genuinely can't make it to a polling station. Not people that can not be bothered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sat 14 Dec 23:05
"Postal votes are opened early to check that the signature is correct. The votes are not counted at this stage. It's done this way so that actual count is not delayed"
The ballot papers are to be kept face down and nobody should be allowed to view them until the count.
If this procedure is not being followed the Returning Officer should be advised.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media/1826
AFAIK there is no requirement in law for police to be present at a Polling Station - I doubt there are enough officers in the UK to do so.
Voting at a Polling Station is open to as much abuse as the postal vote, there is no need for voters to produce ID, except in the Six Counties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Sun 15 Dec 00:43
I don't think I've ever seen a polis man at a polling station. Certainly not this time round or any of the several beforehand.
I did have a first this time though. I was exit polled. At least I think I was. I answered a couple of anonymous questions on a tablet and off I went. It was very random. My wife voted an hour or so later and, by then, the lassie had lost all interest in engaging anyone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sun 15 Dec 08:53
There is nothing wrong with postal voting in principle, if there are are difficulties with the mechanics or logistics then that is a separate issue where problems can be reviewed and resolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 24 Dec 18:36
As much as I'd endorse online votes, I wouldn't trust this country to develop a secure system to record votes cast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Tue 24 Dec 22:12
There are a significant number of people who are not computer literate, and may not even have a PC or laptop, especially the older generation.
That is a big obstacle to online voting before you even look at the technical issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 24 Dec 22:51
Digital literacy is improving every day. It's not really an excuse anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Wed 25 Dec 11:10
"Digital literacy is improving every day. It's not really an excuse anymore."
It was never an "excuse" - some people have never had to use computers in their working lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 25 Dec 19:48
It's a minority of people these days. Last time I checked the broadband coverage in areas like Edinburgh was 80+%.
The issue with any online system is always security. I can log onto my wife's bank but if I walked into the bank and recited her details they'd give me funny looks and call security. Then there's all the alleged Russian interference. In the same way I don't trust fixed off betting machines, I wouldn't trust a computer not to be meddled with by naughty humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Thu 26 Dec 13:23
Overall coverage is not the same as individual usage.
How much is schools, colleges and universities, likewise business such as hotels and stores etc. ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 29 Dec 12:24
Okay, it's actually 95% making us one of the highest internet users per head on the entire planet. Canada already does online voting with a lower percentage. Apparently we did it in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Mon 30 Dec 13:23
Please clarify - are you saying 95% of the voting age population have and use the internet ?
Don't these stats include large numbers of computers held in schools and universities etc. - and free internet access available in stores, hotels and the like ?
I suspect a significant number of users are under voting age.
I don't ever remember online voting at any level of local or national elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 30 Dec 15:13
Data relates to households and usage. We are in the top league for internet users. I've worked developing online solutions so I've heard all the "people won't/can't use it" excuses. In every single example there was excellent adoption. This is why bank branches are closing. The majority no longer use them. It's why high street retail is dying or having to adapt.
I'm quite aware there will be people who can't/won't use the internet. But there's also people who can't read who would benefit from an online solution with assistive technologies. It's something that should be investigated as an option, though I'd still be wary of interventions to fix elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Mon 30 Dec 16:37
Are you saying that people who can't or don't want to use the internet should be disenfranchised? If so, that would seem extremely odd.
People who cannot read are not currently prevented from voting. If they choose to do so, they can be assisted by a companion of their choice or the Presiding Officer who can read any instructions and the choices available. Being assisted by a real person seems to me to be a better option than "assistive technologies".
It might well be possible for many people to vote this way, but it probably gives exactly the same issues as with postal voting and potential for fraud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Mon 30 Dec 17:23
"Data relates to households and usage"
Does that mean that 95% of electorate have the ability to vote online ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 30 Dec 17:31
I'd say that at least 95% of the electorate have some sort of online capability. Especially as mobile phones are mostly now internet enabled.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Mon 30 Dec 17:35
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 30 Dec 18:55
Not suggesting that in the slightest, socks. That said, it's sadly a case that people who can't/won't use the internet are being left behind. This is why the likes of SCVO are involved in improving digital literacy. As has been suggested support could be offered in libraries.
If we could pull off online voting (robust security and identification) then I'd expect there would still need to be a paper option for a period of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Mon 30 Dec 20:19
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 30 Dec 22:59
Quote:
BigJPar, Mon 30 Dec 20:19
Could open up a black market of people selling their votes to others.
Your vote online would be linked to your computer's ISP address. Selling your vote on the black market would not work as they couldn't use it from your IP address.
There are probably ways to steal your vote online so security would have to be tight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Thu 2 Jan 09:23
Will the imminent Windows 7 scenario have security issues for online voting ?
Just asking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 2 Jan 09:35
No. I'd expect online voting would be via something like Government Gateway. It would still run on Windows 7.
If you're still using Windows 7 then you should consider upgrading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Thu 2 Jan 17:04
I've been Windows 10 for sometime now.
Going by media etc. reports, Windows 7 is likely to have security issues from 14th January, hence the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 2 Jan 18:11
Large swathes of the US military still use Windows XP and even older. You see whereas older operating systems might not be ideal they have been robustly tested and most vulnerabilities have been discovered and patched. It makes upgrading systems for critical infrastructure a difficult trade off.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 2 Jan 22:19
They must be incredibly thick then. Microsoft officially stopped patching it years ago (though they did release a patch not so long ago).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 2 Jan 22:33
Aye they must be incredibly thick then....
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Fri 3 Jan 00:18
XP still gets updates but only for those who pay ie security forces,big companys etc.Do you think microsoft miss the chance of a few bob?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 3 Jan 09:22
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Thu 2 Jan 22:33
Aye they must be incredibly thick then....
Glad you agree.
Windows XP is unsupported and won't run modern software. I would expect the military in the US is still using it because they have their own out-dated software that won't run on modern operating systems. That in itself is concerning. Whilst we sent men to the moon using the processing power of a ZX Spectrum, these machines won't be as secure as a Windows 10 box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 3 Jan 15:52
XP will be run on workstations. It's what's running on the servers that should be more worrying. There will be fifty or sixty year-old undocumented code running no doubt.
In the late 90s there was at least one UK bank whose software would occasionally have to convert to Pounds, Shillings and Pence and back again because their software was so old and complex that nobody really knew how it worked. No idea if they have fixed it yet.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 4 Jan 11:35
I once went for an interview at Tesco bank. Must have been 2015/16. They were still using the old RBS software even though they'd separated 6/7 years before. I asked about their website and it was the same situation. They had a ridiculous system of checks as a simple change one one page could affect the whole site. Shortly after they announced plans to reduce their workforce and consolidate their offices.
Nationwide are even worse. Their debit card and credit card systems don't speak to each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Sun 5 Jan 18:00
Quote:
jake89, Sat 4 Jan 11:35
I once went for an interview at Tesco bank. Must have been 2015/16. They were still using the old RBS software even though they'd separated 6/7 years before. I asked about their website and it was the same situation. They had a ridiculous system of checks as a simple change one one page could affect the whole site. Shortly after they announced plans to reduce their workforce and consolidate their offices.
Nationwide are even worse. Their debit card and credit card systems don't speak to each other.
My son works for IT division Tesco Bank, I'll ask him if they upgraded.
Read somewhere that the new carriers from the Yard were still running XP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 6 Jan 11:35
Windows XP was probably desupported before they even started building them!
TBH I've always been surprised that government agencies aren't using their own variants of Linux.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 6 Jan 18:09
Tbf XP was the last decent Windows release. I moved to Linux at home after giving Vista a quick sniff test at work and no Windows release since has tempted me back.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 6 Jan 19:07
Quote:
Wotsit, Mon 6 Jan 18:09
Tbf XP was the last decent Windows release. I moved to Linux at home after giving Vista a quick sniff test at work and no Windows release since has tempted me back.
Vista is not really a fair comparison with any Windows release. It was the worst ever and was pretty quickly ditched. W10 is the best since XP.
I have tried several Linux builds but found I had to work far too hard to do something that was easy on Windows.
I know you can probably do everything on Linux you can on Windows. It is just too much work involved getting into it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 6 Jan 19:21
Windows 10 is pretty decent. I use Linux Mint at home though. Never had any issues with it. Easy to install and work on. It just works.
Never had a single virus or piece of malware using Linux. I tire of dealing with parental PC issues that are usually because they didn't untick a box when installing something and now have 5 extra bars on their browser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 7 Jan 01:59
I've reinstalled Linux once in ten years, and even then it was only because I had a new SSD and I wanted to move from Ubuntu to Mint.
There's definitely a learning curve but there's a ton of help available online and all but the most cutting edge machines will work pretty flawlessly out of the box now.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 7 Jan 10:58
Quote:
Wotsit, Tue 7 Jan 01:59
I've reinstalled Linux once in ten years, and even then it was only because I had a new SSD and I wanted to move from Ubuntu to Mint.
There's definitely a learning curve but there's a ton of help available online and all but the most cutting edge machines will work pretty flawlessly out of the box now.
Yeah. I would like to move to Mint but it's a shared laptop and although I would put the work in no one else in the family will.
I don't think I could handle the hassle of the wife and daughter asking how to do this and that. It's bad enough with them on Windows.
Maybe when we upgrade laptop I will use the old one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
