Lawyers prepare landmark case over lost votes Thousands of people could be contacted and asked which way they meant to vote in last week's election under a landmark legal challenge.
Lawyers plan to submit papers at the Court of Session challenging the result of the regional list ballot in Glasgow, where around 9000 votes were discarded.
It has also emerged Labour Party lawyers will ask for a manual recount of all the votes cast in the Cunninghame North constituency, which they lost by just 48 to the SNP.
Mike Dailly, a solicitor at the Govan Law Centre, said yesterday he had been contacted by several voters in Glasgow since Friday who believe their votes were among those disregarded.
He said they had wrongly placed two crosses on the regional ballot and none at all on the constituency form.
Mr Dailly said that if the votes had stood, it could have resulted in a seat for Tommy Sheridan's Solidarity Party or another MSP for the Greens and a different national result.
He said: "What we've got in Glasgow is a situation where people who cast their vote have had their vote discounted.
"This is quite important because if a number of those had gone to Tommy Sheridan or the Greens, then clearly that could have meant a different result on the Glasgow list.
"Obviously, given the balance of power, this is hugely important."
Mr Dailly said he planned to raise his legal challenge under Article 3 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees that citizens should have the conditions in which to express freely their views in an election.
He said he would be looking for two possible outcomes from the legal challenge. "We can either rerun the Glasgow list election, or the returning officer can contact those 9000 people and ascertain their clear intention," he said.
| We have people in Glasgow who cast their vote but had it discounted | |
|
Mr Dailly said contacting each of the voters would be possible because the number of the ballot paper is written beside their name when they turn up to vote.
Last night, Tommy Sheridan told The Herald he was supporting Mr Dailly's case.
He said: "It was a farce. People have expressed their opinion legitimately, but the ballot paper being so complicated wasn't their fault."
A spokesman for the Greens, which has submitted a Freedom of Information request to every returning officer in the country asking for copies of every discarded ballot paper, said they would "watch with interest" Mr Dailly's legal challenge.
The Herald revealed on Saturday that Labour officials in Ayrshire were considering a legal challenge into the result in Cunninghame North where Kenneth Gibson of the SNP narrowly defeated Labour's Allan Wilson, former Deputy Lifelong Learning Minister.
At the heart of the challenge is Labour's claim that Ian Snodgrass, the returning officer at the count, had turned down their request for a manual recount of all the ballot papers.
Allan Wilson said yesterday: "The prospective challenge arises from concerns that have been expressed to me by local party members, and more importantly local people, about the conduct of the ballot in Cunninghame North."
Mr Wilson also rejected accusations by the SNP that the potential legal challenge was "sour grapes" on Labour's part, adding: "Everybody understands a manual recount could even increase the SNP majority."
Mr Snodgrass, who is also chief executive of North Ayrshire Council, said: "We've had no contact whatsoever with Mr Wilson since the election. If he contacts us we will give careful consideration to all his concerns."
12:58am Monday 7th May 2007  Print  Email this  CommentPosted by: Alastair, Dumfries on 10:09pm Sun 6 May 07 This numpty, Allan Wilson (what a shambles of a speaker he is - Enterprise Minister? FFS someone has a sense of humour!) is only trying to subvert a democratic result, no doubt with the acquiescence of the Labour party. The case is basically "we lost, and that's not meant to happen, ergo there must be something wrong and it needs to be re-run until we win.
Can I now request a re-run of last season's 2nd division playoffs because Morton lost 1-0 to a disputed penalty, so obviously it was really a draw as near as makes no difference so... you get my point?
Wilson, you lost. Accept it and feck off! This numpty, Allan Wilson (what a shambles of a speaker he is - Enterprise Minister? FFS someone has a sense of humour!) is only trying to subvert a democratic result, no doubt with the acquiescence of the Labour party. The case is basically "we lost, and that's not meant to happen, ergo there must be something wrong and it needs to be re-run until we win.
Can I now request a re-run of last season's 2nd division playoffs because Morton lost 1-0 to a disputed penalty, so obviously it was really a draw as near as makes no difference so... you get my point?
Wilson, you lost. Accept it and feck off! Posted by: Lynne, Glasgow on 10:25pm Sun 6 May 07 The nationalists are clearly quite happy for this election to count even although the views of over 80,000 voters have not been taken into account. The Labour Party only lost 4 seats, so it is clear that the SNP gained their seats from those that were lost by the small parties. This is a total travesty, and the Labour Party are quite right to challenge the decision in Cunninghame North. For many years, recounts were the order of the date in the constituency of Ayr, hotly contested between the Labour and Conservative Parties, where the majority very often ranged between 60 and 80. Neither of these parties would ever have questioned the other's right to ask for a recount, yet the SNP now accuses anyone questioning anything of 'sour grapes'. Is this the kind of banana republic or brave new world that we now live in, under Alex Salmond? The nationalists are clearly quite happy for this election to count even although the views of over 80,000 voters have not been taken into account. The Labour Party only lost 4 seats, so it is clear that the SNP gained their seats from those that were lost by the small parties. This is a total travesty, and the Labour Party are quite right to challenge the decision in Cunninghame North. For many years, recounts were the order of the date in the constituency of Ayr, hotly contested between the Labour and Conservative Parties, where the majority very often ranged between 60 and 80. Neither of these parties would ever have questioned the other's right to ask for a recount, yet the SNP now accuses anyone questioning anything of 'sour grapes'. Is this the kind of banana republic or brave new world that we now live in, under Alex Salmond? Posted by: Mark, Glasgow on 10:50pm Sun 6 May 07 The Labour party are sounding very childish, "the toys are out of the pram" The elections organised? by the London administration were a shambles but I think reopening Wilson contaest would lead to a snowball effect and a rerun election for the whole country. Grow up and accept defeat The Labour party are sounding very childish, "the toys are out of the pram" The elections organised? by the London administration were a shambles but I think reopening Wilson contaest would lead to a snowball effect and a rerun election for the whole country. Grow up and accept defeat Posted by: James Brown, Ayr on 10:55pm Sun 6 May 07 Lynne, what makes you think that the majority of those 80,000 rejected voters would have voted Labour?
If Mr Wilson or any other candidate was unhappy with the count they should have asked for a recount there and then.
You're a bad loser. Bear in mind this shambolic system was introduced by David Cairns and Douglas Alexander of the London Labour Party. Lynne, what makes you think that the majority of those 80,000 rejected voters would have voted Labour?
If Mr Wilson or any other candidate was unhappy with the count they should have asked for a recount there and then.
You're a bad loser. Bear in mind this shambolic system was introduced by David Cairns and Douglas Alexander of the London Labour Party. Posted by: Brian Blessed, Glasgow on 10:56pm Sun 6 May 07 The Labour-run Scotland Office are responsible for this farce of an election.
Labour employed DRS Systems to operate the counting machines - DRS Systems have one Neil Kinnock as non-executive director.
Labour change the ballot forms, plus give DRS Systems a final veto over their design.
Labour ignore everyone's advice to hold separate Parliamentary and Council elections.
Labour attempt to extend their Tammany Hall brand of democracy to our Parliament and council chambers.
And now a Labour member disnae like it and wants a court case.
Irony at its finest. The Labour-run Scotland Office are responsible for this farce of an election.
Labour employed DRS Systems to operate the counting machines - DRS Systems have one Neil Kinnock as non-executive director.
Labour change the ballot forms, plus give DRS Systems a final veto over their design.
Labour ignore everyone's advice to hold separate Parliamentary and Council elections.
Labour attempt to extend their Tammany Hall brand of democracy to our Parliament and council chambers.
And now a Labour member disnae like it and wants a court case.
Irony at its finest. Posted by: Dave B, Edinburgh on 11:19pm Sun 6 May 07 It's completely unrealistic to have a partial re-run in a given area.
That would make a mockery of the democratic process, with new tactical voting coming into play from voters knowing the previous results..
It's completely unrealistic to have a partial re-run in a given area.
That would make a mockery of the democratic process, with new tactical voting coming into play from voters knowing the previous results..
Posted by: nouveauxvotecounter on 11:21pm Sun 6 May 07 100,000 votes please and every single one should be counted. 100,000 votes please and every single one should be counted. Posted by: graham on 11:28pm Sun 6 May 07 100,000 votes plus the lost postal voters, whirl them through those machines please to give Labour 130 seats. 100,000 votes plus the lost postal voters, whirl them through those machines please to give Labour 130 seats. Posted by: Braveheart on 11:30pm Sun 6 May 07 [quote][bold]Lynne[/bold] wrote:
The nationalists are clearly quite happy for this election to count even although the views of over 80,000 voters have not been taken into account. The Labour Party only lost 4 seats, so it is clear that the SNP gained their seats from those that were lost by the small parties. This is a total travesty, and the Labour Party are quite right to challenge the decision in Cunninghame North. For many years, recounts were the order of the date in the constituency of Ayr, hotly contested between the Labour and Conservative Parties, where the majority very often ranged between 60 and 80. Neither of these parties would ever have questioned the other's right to ask for a recount, yet the SNP now accuses anyone questioning anything of 'sour grapes'. Is this the kind of banana republic or brave new world that we now live in, under Alex Salmond? [/quote] Lynne it sounds like sour grapes! what a bitter diatribe. But Hey! As an SNP supporter I'm happy to have a re-run. Then the SNP will have an even bigger majority!!! Lets get it on!! Lynne wrote:
The nationalists are clearly quite happy for this election to count even although the views of over 80,000 voters have not been taken into account. The Labour Party only lost 4 seats, so it is clear that the SNP gained their seats from those that were lost by the small parties. This is a total travesty, and the Labour Party are quite right to challenge the decision in Cunninghame North. For many years, recounts were the order of the date in the constituency of Ayr, hotly contested between the Labour and Conservative Parties, where the majority very often ranged between 60 and 80. Neither of these parties would ever have questioned the other's right to ask for a recount, yet the SNP now accuses anyone questioning anything of 'sour grapes'. Is this the kind of banana republic or brave new world that we now live in, under Alex Salmond? Lynne it sounds like sour grapes! what a bitter diatribe. But Hey! As an SNP supporter I'm happy to have a re-run. Then the SNP will have an even bigger majority!!! Lets get it on!! Posted by: Braveheart on 11:30pm Sun 6 May 07 [quote][bold]Lynne[/bold] wrote:
The nationalists are clearly quite happy for this election to count even although the views of over 80,000 voters have not been taken into account. The Labour Party only lost 4 seats, so it is clear that the SNP gained their seats from those that were lost by the small parties. This is a total travesty, and the Labour Party are quite right to challenge the decision in Cunninghame North. For many years, recounts were the order of the date in the constituency of Ayr, hotly contested between the Labour and Conservative Parties, where the majority very often ranged between 60 and 80. Neither of these parties would ever have questioned the other's right to ask for a recount, yet the SNP now accuses anyone questioning anything of 'sour grapes'. Is this the kind of banana republic or brave new world that we now live in, under Alex Salmond? [/quote] Lynne it sounds like sour grapes! what a bitter diatribe. But Hey! As an SNP supporter I'm happy to have a re-run. Then the SNP will have an even bigger majority!!! Lets get it on!! Lynne wrote:
The nationalists are clearly quite happy for this election to count even although the views of over 80,000 voters have not been taken into account. The Labour Party only lost 4 seats, so it is clear that the SNP gained their seats from those that were lost by the small parties. This is a total travesty, and the Labour Party are quite right to challenge the decision in Cunninghame North. For many years, recounts were the order of the date in the constituency of Ayr, hotly contested between the Labour and Conservative Parties, where the majority very often ranged between 60 and 80. Neither of these parties would ever have questioned the other's right to ask for a recount, yet the SNP now accuses anyone questioning anything of 'sour grapes'. Is this the kind of banana republic or brave new world that we now live in, under Alex Salmond? Lynne it sounds like sour grapes! what a bitter diatribe. But Hey! As an SNP supporter I'm happy to have a re-run. Then the SNP will have an even bigger majority!!! Lets get it on!! Posted by: Darryl Matheson, Elgin, Morayshire on 11:38pm Sun 6 May 07 How can the SNP object to a recount where the majority is 48 when Alex salmond demanded a recount in Aberdeen Central for no apparent reason where the Labour majority was 382 and the recount made 2 votes of diffrence. How can the SNP object to a recount where the majority is 48 when Alex salmond demanded a recount in Aberdeen Central for no apparent reason where the Labour majority was 382 and the recount made 2 votes of diffrence. Posted by: graham on 11:40pm Sun 6 May 07 Ah but Lynne those recounts in Ayr never included the already discounted/spoiled ballots, they only included the valid ones. Ah but Lynne those recounts in Ayr never included the already discounted/spoiled ballots, they only included the valid ones. Posted by: nouveauxscum on 11:44pm Sun 6 May 07 Sore loser Darryl? Live with it - you will learn a lot about life's injustices. Sore loser Darryl? Live with it - you will learn a lot about life's injustices. Posted by: Jason Jack, Scotland on 11:46pm Sun 6 May 07 If there is any recount I will demand a check of signature at application against postal votes. Labour supporters are openly boasting at how they shafted the SNP with unwitting ballots being cast for Labour. Certain parts of Govan it was rife. The disabled and minorities were particularly targeted. Just compare the signatures. It's not rocket science. If there is any recount I will demand a check of signature at application against postal votes. Labour supporters are openly boasting at how they shafted the SNP with unwitting ballots being cast for Labour. Certain parts of Govan it was rife. The disabled and minorities were particularly targeted. Just compare the signatures. It's not rocket science. Posted by: Brian Blessed, Glasgow on 11:56pm Sun 6 May 07 [quote][bold]Jason Jack[/bold] wrote
Labour supporters are openly boasting at how they shafted the SNP with unwitting ballots being cast for Labour[/quote]
I came across a guy on polling day who tried to vote at the polling station, only to be told he had already applied for a postal vote. This was news to him and his wife, who had done no such thing. He hadn't received any ballot papers, and I had to tell him it was likely his papers had been sent to another address.
Coincidentally, he had received a phone call from the Labour party a few weeks previous, asking if he wanted a postal vote (no) and how he'd be voting (SNP).
I advised the guy to contact the police and get it reported. There were a few other rumours doing the rounds in Govan, which I won't repeat under defamation laws. I will say Govan Labour party did not come out smelling of roses. [bold]And still they lost![/bold] Jason Jack wrote
Labour supporters are openly boasting at how they shafted the SNP with unwitting ballots being cast for Labour
I came across a guy on polling day who tried to vote at the polling station, only to be told he had already applied for a postal vote. This was news to him and his wife, who had done no such thing. He hadn't received any ballot papers, and I had to tell him it was likely his papers had been sent to another address.
Coincidentally, he had received a phone call from the Labour party a few weeks previous, asking if he wanted a postal vote (no) and how he'd be voting (SNP).
I advised the guy to contact the police and get it reported. There were a few other rumours doing the rounds in Govan, which I won't repeat under defamation laws. I will say Govan Labour party did not come out smelling of roses. And still they lost! Posted by: ptdoug, ek on 12:07am Mon 7 May 07 It's over Jack. Go home. Spend some time with your family.
The Scottish people simply will not tolerate another four years of Labour.
They voted for change. Labour lost. The SNP won.
lets move on.
Labours posturing and denial of reality really is distasteful to behold.
Embarrasing and petty in the extreme.
Let it go lads.... your time is up.
It's over Jack. Go home. Spend some time with your family.
The Scottish people simply will not tolerate another four years of Labour.
They voted for change. Labour lost. The SNP won.
lets move on.
Labours posturing and denial of reality really is distasteful to behold.
Embarrasing and petty in the extreme.
Let it go lads.... your time is up.
Posted by: Big D, Glasgow on 1:09am Mon 7 May 07 Bob Linklater, you sound like you *want* the country to do badly now.
Just like some of the Labour politicians I saw on TV during the campaign, you very obviously would like to see Scotland decline and do badly, as it "confirms" your pathetic cringe and conviction that we are too weedy to "go it alone".
Grow up - if people like you actually wanted the country to do well, there might be a lot less talk about independence. Bob Linklater, you sound like you *want* the country to do badly now.
Just like some of the Labour politicians I saw on TV during the campaign, you very obviously would like to see Scotland decline and do badly, as it "confirms" your pathetic cringe and conviction that we are too weedy to "go it alone".
Grow up - if people like you actually wanted the country to do well, there might be a lot less talk about independence. Posted by: Huntly loon, Gordon on 1:16am Mon 7 May 07 Recounts are called by an aggrieved candidate or agent, before the declaration is made. That was what happened in Aberdeen Central , when the original result was upheld. I do not believe a recount was requested in Cunninghame North prior to the declaration. The threat to go for legal action came after. Recounts are called by an aggrieved candidate or agent, before the declaration is made. That was what happened in Aberdeen Central , when the original result was upheld. I do not believe a recount was requested in Cunninghame North prior to the declaration. The threat to go for legal action came after. Posted by: Darryl Matheson, Elgin, Morayshire on 1:45am Mon 7 May 07 Wrong, a recount was requested and denied Wrong, a recount was requested and denied Posted by: paul h, fife on 1:54am Mon 7 May 07 Democracy is under attack from all sides. Labour are clearly at it, they are probably planning all sorts of subdifuge. They haven`t even congratulated the winner as is custom, bitter and sour lot that they are. [bold]Over 50,000 more people voted snp than labour[/bold] so it is only right that the snp have more msps. And yet labour want to reopen cunninghame north. [bold]They should thusly be persuing all 100,00, or so, lost votes in a non partisan way in the interests of all the electorate.[/bold] Add to this the stance of the lib dems. Who will not support a referendum despite the fact that there is a hugh majourity of votes and msps who want more power for hollyrood. And despite the fact that they themselves support it they have rejected the chance to achieve it. Their london colleagues probably won`t let them.
But then we can rest assured that our democratic rights will be pursued and protected by our national press.....maybe not then. ( this critisicism is not of the herald) Democracy is under attack from all sides. Labour are clearly at it, they are probably planning all sorts of subdifuge. They haven`t even congratulated the winner as is custom, bitter and sour lot that they are. Over 50,000 more people voted snp than labour so it is only right that the snp have more msps. And yet labour want to reopen cunninghame north. They should thusly be persuing all 100,00, or so, lost votes in a non partisan way in the interests of all the electorate. Add to this the stance of the lib dems. Who will not support a referendum despite the fact that there is a hugh majourity of votes and msps who want more power for hollyrood. And despite the fact that they themselves support it they have rejected the chance to achieve it. Their london colleagues probably won`t let them.
But then we can rest assured that our democratic rights will be pursued and protected by our national press.....maybe not then. ( this critisicism is not of the herald) Posted by: Jo, Glasgow on 2:14am Mon 7 May 07 Is anyone else tired of hearing how complicated the ballot papers were? I am. I read the instructions first. I studied the ballot paper carefully and I completed it correctly. What is difficult about that? It may be true that the Scottish Parliament and Local Council elections should not have been held on the same day but are we really suggesting that certain votes have to be re-run simply because an awful lot of people were too stupid to understand what to do or too lazy to seek assistance? It is absurd. What I would like to have an answer to however is the fact that votes from the Islands initially suggested Labour had won four seats and then after a recount it was suddenly discovered they only had two. Now THAT needs explained! Is anyone else tired of hearing how complicated the ballot papers were? I am. I read the instructions first. I studied the ballot paper carefully and I completed it correctly. What is difficult about that? It may be true that the Scottish Parliament and Local Council elections should not have been held on the same day but are we really suggesting that certain votes have to be re-run simply because an awful lot of people were too stupid to understand what to do or too lazy to seek assistance? It is absurd. What I would like to have an answer to however is the fact that votes from the Islands initially suggested Labour had won four seats and then after a recount it was suddenly discovered they only had two. Now THAT needs explained! Posted by: Peter Cherbi on 3:40am Mon 7 May 07 Is Mike Dailly in charge of the 'get Tommy Sheridan reelected campaign' ? or is this about the wider benefit of having a recount to satisfy human rights violations (such a questionable claim, coming from a scots lawyer these days whose motives may not be what they seem..) Is Mike Dailly in charge of the 'get Tommy Sheridan reelected campaign' ? or is this about the wider benefit of having a recount to satisfy human rights violations (such a questionable claim, coming from a scots lawyer these days whose motives may not be what they seem..) Posted by: Jock Tamson's Bairn, UK on 4:18am Mon 7 May 07 James Brown
Read the article before you spout nonsense. Wilson DID ask for a manual recount. It was refused. When Alex Salmond asked for a recount in Aberdeen which was won by nearly 400 votes it was granted.
Allan Wilson even says in the article that a recount could increase the SNP majority. I tell you this, had Wilson won by 48 votes you and all the other SNP supporters would be on here spitting blood if a recount had been denied.
You are a bitter old man, James Brown. Your posts attacking the dead were some of the vilest I have ever seen. But surely even you must respect people's right to vote.
James Brown
Read the article before you spout nonsense. Wilson DID ask for a manual recount. It was refused. When Alex Salmond asked for a recount in Aberdeen which was won by nearly 400 votes it was granted.
Allan Wilson even says in the article that a recount could increase the SNP majority. I tell you this, had Wilson won by 48 votes you and all the other SNP supporters would be on here spitting blood if a recount had been denied.
You are a bitter old man, James Brown. Your posts attacking the dead were some of the vilest I have ever seen. But surely even you must respect people's right to vote.
Posted by: G on 4:35am Mon 7 May 07 But that will cause the SNP to challenge every seat they lost where the discarded ballots outweighed the majority! I think they should do it all again without the council selections. Do the council elections on a different date. Then no one can complain! Just as long as Jack isn't first minister and whoever is in power down South can't just do what they like and have our "government" up here say "Yeth mathter!", Oh! That's what we're going to have now... does Gordon not like whats happened aaaaaaw.
(yes it's supposed to be "th" = Igor a.k.a. Jack with a lisp). But that will cause the SNP to challenge every seat they lost where the discarded ballots outweighed the majority! I think they should do it all again without the council selections. Do the council elections on a different date. Then no one can complain! Just as long as Jack isn't first minister and whoever is in power down South can't just do what they like and have our "government" up here say "Yeth mathter!", Oh! That's what we're going to have now... does Gordon not like whats happened aaaaaaw.
(yes it's supposed to be "th" = Igor a.k.a. Jack with a lisp). Posted by: Jock Tamson\'s Bairn, UK on 5:08am Mon 7 May 07 "What I would like to have an answer to however is the fact that votes from the Islands initially suggested Labour had won four seats and then after a recount it was suddenly discovered they only had two. Now THAT needs explained"
Actually, it was three. But that was yet another recount the SNP asked for and got. Are they the only party entitled to recounts? "What I would like to have an answer to however is the fact that votes from the Islands initially suggested Labour had won four seats and then after a recount it was suddenly discovered they only had two. Now THAT needs explained"
Actually, it was three. But that was yet another recount the SNP asked for and got. Are they the only party entitled to recounts? Posted by: Alan Smart, www.youscotland.com on 6:06am Mon 7 May 07 What a bunch of cheaters - they have the brass neck to complain about their own conspiracy
Please sign this petition on the Scotish Vote Scandal. Do more than this - forward detals to others, as many as you can. Dont let the politicians sweep this under the carpet as part of a deal. One tenth of us have been cheated of our right to vote
[bold]http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ScottishVoteScandal2007/[/bold] What a bunch of cheaters - they have the brass neck to complain about their own conspiracy
Please sign this petition on the Scotish Vote Scandal. Do more than this - forward detals to others, as many as you can. Dont let the politicians sweep this under the carpet as part of a deal. One tenth of us have been cheated of our right to vote
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ScottishVoteScandal2007/ Posted by: Craig on 7:15am Mon 7 May 07 [bold] Since when was it possible for the goverment able to tell who people voted for? Is there nobody else concerned about this?[/bold] Since when was it possible for the goverment able to tell who people voted for? Is there nobody else concerned about this? Posted by: David, Inbhir Nis on 7:28am Mon 7 May 07 I'm sorry, but am I the only one in Scotland who thought the ballot papers were really pretty simple and straight forward?! It wasn't bloody rocket science...it was clearly explainedo n the papers and the the clerk in the polling place. If you aren't clever enough to work out where to but your mark (doesn't even invovled spelling) then quite frankly, you don't deserve to have your vote counted as you probably 'don't have the first idea who you're voting for in any case...the result MUST stand...anything else and Scotland's reputation will suffer even more...
Labour, you lost...get used to it and leave us Scots to get on with our country's future without stucking your oar in... I'm sorry, but am I the only one in Scotland who thought the ballot papers were really pretty simple and straight forward?! It wasn't bloody rocket science...it was clearly explainedo n the papers and the the clerk in the polling place. If you aren't clever enough to work out where to but your mark (doesn't even invovled spelling) then quite frankly, you don't deserve to have your vote counted as you probably 'don't have the first idea who you're voting for in any case...the result MUST stand...anything else and Scotland's reputation will suffer even more...
Labour, you lost...get used to it and leave us Scots to get on with our country's future without stucking your oar in... Posted by: David, Inbhir Nis on 7:34am Mon 7 May 07 [bold]Just a wee note to Lynne would posted 2nd above...[/bold]
For your information, the [bold]Cunningham North result has ALREADY UNDERGONE A RECOUNT[/bold] ...this happened on the night when the LOOSER Allan Wilson demanded it...he's already had his legal righ to a recount...and the recount revealled for a second time that [bold]HE LOST!![/bold]
Labour are quite simply sore losers...it's as simple as that... Just a wee note to Lynne would posted 2nd above...
For your information, the Cunningham North result has ALREADY UNDERGONE A RECOUNT ...this happened on the night when the LOOSER Allan Wilson demanded it...he's already had his legal righ to a recount...and the recount revealled for a second time that HE LOST!!
Labour are quite simply sore losers...it's as simple as that... Posted by: bullyweealba, Salmond Ville on 7:47am Mon 7 May 07 It has always been possible to trace who has voted for whom. Each ballot paper is numbered and the Polling Clerk writes this number beside the name of the voter on the electoral roll in front of them. It is therefore possible to match up the name with the vote.
There appears to be a huge anount of confusion amongst the labourites regarding the Arran vote.One report has them complaining about 100 missing votes, another suggests there was 100 extra votes!
In any case, the Returning Officer has pointed out that the Arran votes were checked manually, and there was no discrepancy.
The 5% spoiled ballot papers and the missing postal votes are other questions entirely, worthy of a judicial enquiry. It has always been possible to trace who has voted for whom. Each ballot paper is numbered and the Polling Clerk writes this number beside the name of the voter on the electoral roll in front of them. It is therefore possible to match up the name with the vote.
There appears to be a huge anount of confusion amongst the labourites regarding the Arran vote.One report has them complaining about 100 missing votes, another suggests there was 100 extra votes!
In any case, the Returning Officer has pointed out that the Arran votes were checked manually, and there was no discrepancy.
The 5% spoiled ballot papers and the missing postal votes are other questions entirely, worthy of a judicial enquiry. Posted by: donald anderson, glasgow on 7:50am Mon 7 May 07 Another election is the only way to get a conclusive result now. All of Scotland, not just Labour lawyers in one constiturecy. Another election is the only way to get a conclusive result now. All of Scotland, not just Labour lawyers in one constiturecy. Posted by: LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL, west coast on 7:53am Mon 7 May 07 If only the Scots could see past their own noses that when you have parties bankrolled by millionaires and clearly part of the establishment it doesn't matter who gets in, their primary goal will be to keep their millionaire backers happy and continue the inequality that has remained due to Scotlands election system that FAILS us all time and again.
True democracy is about giving us all the right to freely vote that cannot occur as the media ensure they concentrate SOLELY on the establishment parties with their RICH funders.
NONE of these parties have any interest in the VAST majority of Scotlands people.We as a group have experience of dealing with those parties at Holyrood and have seen the complete lack of attention to constituents who have been fleeced through the star chamber court system that has destroyed Scots who successfully beat deprivation and went on to build up homes and capital only to be asset stripped by the despots controlling our courts.
ALL of the MSP's that Scotland voted for are the same bunch of mobsters who did NOTHING repeat DID NOTHING to improve this situation .Instead ignored the massive amounts of evidence that show Scotlands wealth is not harmed by political gangsters but the non elected shadow legal gangsters who are causing massive injustice in our courts.
Courts that have been highjacked by mobsters who are running them for their own financial advantage while greatly undermining ALL scottish people that are dragged through a disgusting and lengthy spectacle of injustice that makes even Hitlers mob pale by comparison.ANYONE as yet who has not faced Scotlands civil courts will only understand the true depths Scotland has plunged when they do finally get dragged through those courts AND MOST OF US WILL IN TIME.
The charlatans disguised as our MSP's of ALL persuasions are the cause of that system continuing to produce daily massive homelessness and deprivation on a GRAND SCALE.For anyone fooled by the constant rhetoric that those we are forced to vote for with little choice will somehow change the legal landscape of Scotland with urgency clearly have been fooled by ALL the information we get from, primarily the media ,that seems hell bent on keeping Scotlands failed democratic process in perpetuity.
Scotland needs independence from ALL establishment parties and that requires monolithic change and SCOTS refusing to accept what we are given as some form of DEMOCRACY.
THAT IT IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS
http://www.ljpr.cjb.net
If only the Scots could see past their own noses that when you have parties bankrolled by millionaires and clearly part of the establishment it doesn't matter who gets in, their primary goal will be to keep their millionaire backers happy and continue the inequality that has remained due to Scotlands election system that FAILS us all time and again.
True democracy is about giving us all the right to freely vote that cannot occur as the media ensure they concentrate SOLELY on the establishment parties with their RICH funders.
NONE of these parties have any interest in the VAST majority of Scotlands people.We as a group have experience of dealing with those parties at Holyrood and have seen the complete lack of attention to constituents who have been fleeced through the star chamber court system that has destroyed Scots who successfully beat deprivation and went on to build up homes and capital only to be asset stripped by the despots controlling our courts.
ALL of the MSP's that Scotland voted for are the same bunch of mobsters who did NOTHING repeat DID NOTHING to improve this situation .Instead ignored the massive amounts of evidence that show Scotlands wealth is not harmed by political gangsters but the non elected shadow legal gangsters who are causing massive injustice in our courts.
Courts that have been highjacked by mobsters who are running them for their own financial advantage while greatly undermining ALL scottish people that are dragged through a disgusting and lengthy spectacle of injustice that makes even Hitlers mob pale by comparison.ANYONE as yet who has not faced Scotlands civil courts will only understand the true depths Scotland has plunged when they do finally get dragged through those courts AND MOST OF US WILL IN TIME.
The charlatans disguised as our MSP's of ALL persuasions are the cause of that system continuing to produce daily massive homelessness and deprivation on a GRAND SCALE.For anyone fooled by the constant rhetoric that those we are forced to vote for with little choice will somehow change the legal landscape of Scotland with urgency clearly have been fooled by ALL the information we get from, primarily the media ,that seems hell bent on keeping Scotlands failed democratic process in perpetuity.
Scotland needs independence from ALL establishment parties and that requires monolithic change and SCOTS refusing to accept what we are given as some form of DEMOCRACY.
THAT IT IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS
http://www.ljpr.cjb.net
Posted by: j wilson, glasgow on 8:15am Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Bob Linklater[/bold] wrote:
The SNP administration is knacked before it's even begun. Let's see the dopey squad run by that smug p r i c k Salmond dodge along for the next 18 months and then have to apologose to Scotland for the baws he's made of things. Scotland has spoken and they don't want independence - otherwise the SNP would have a lot more seats and Labour ould have lost more than 4.[/quote] Can't spell "apologise" eh Bob? Were you just putting little "x's" beside all your choices?
Labour are a shower of war-mongering has-beens and no one wants to hear from them... Bob Linklater wrote:
The SNP administration is knacked before it's even begun. Let's see the dopey squad run by that smug p r i c k Salmond dodge along for the next 18 months and then have to apologose to Scotland for the baws he's made of things. Scotland has spoken and they don't want independence - otherwise the SNP would have a lot more seats and Labour ould have lost more than 4. Can't spell "apologise" eh Bob? Were you just putting little "x's" beside all your choices?
Labour are a shower of war-mongering has-beens and no one wants to hear from them... Posted by: davidjohn, lochalainn on 8:33am Mon 7 May 07 people like linklater are typical expressing the ignorant backward dependency culture the brit labour party have carefully fostered in scotland especially over the last 20 yrs ,the important indication of this election is that labour lost badly,the snp came from incredibly far behind to win the lp worry about one thing themselves and their carefully protected jobs for the boys attitude................i think the scots might just becoming wise to this people like linklater are typical expressing the ignorant backward dependency culture the brit labour party have carefully fostered in scotland especially over the last 20 yrs ,the important indication of this election is that labour lost badly,the snp came from incredibly far behind to win the lp worry about one thing themselves and their carefully protected jobs for the boys attitude................i think the scots might just becoming wise to this Posted by: will, hk on 9:15am Mon 7 May 07 What's this about the ballot number being written beside your name when you vote? Whatever happened to the anonimity of the ballot box?
Surely nobody should be able to find out how individuals voted in an election, for fear of repurcussions!
But even if you were able to contact all 9,000 numpties who couldn't even read the instructions, who is to say they'd be willing to say openly who they wanted to vote for?
Sorry, trying to vote twice means you spoiled your ballot paper -- there's no two ways about it. What's this about the ballot number being written beside your name when you vote? Whatever happened to the anonimity of the ballot box?
Surely nobody should be able to find out how individuals voted in an election, for fear of repurcussions!
But even if you were able to contact all 9,000 numpties who couldn't even read the instructions, who is to say they'd be willing to say openly who they wanted to vote for?
Sorry, trying to vote twice means you spoiled your ballot paper -- there's no two ways about it. Posted by: Mr Lachie Todd, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K. on 9:16am Mon 7 May 07 Why does the Labour candidate not listen to Professor John Curtice's view on this matter? In recent times, a number of local and national political candidates have fought similar sour grape legal actions, and either lost in court or when the election was re-run! Labour should take Professor Curtice's very sound advice and accept the result? Lachie Todd. Why does the Labour candidate not listen to Professor John Curtice's view on this matter? In recent times, a number of local and national political candidates have fought similar sour grape legal actions, and either lost in court or when the election was re-run! Labour should take Professor Curtice's very sound advice and accept the result? Lachie Todd. Posted by: Disgruntled Labour Voter, Lanark on 9:18am Mon 7 May 07 I have voted Labour all my life and did so this time too, but after this fiasco that is being called an election, I think it will be the last time. It’s sad to see the once great Scottish Labour Party degenerate into the shambles and embarrassment that it has now become and this utter nonsense of mounting a legal challenge by Alan Wilson has really put the icing on the cake for me. I canny see how a party that was once so committed to the rights of the people of Scotland has now turned to trickery and duplicity to try and “change” the result of a democratic election. And before everyone starts shouting and moaning about the election being democratic let me just say this: all the parties were under the exact same conditions, not just Labour!!!
Alan Wilson if you decide to forge ahead with legal action using the Labour party’s backing, then not only will you be an absolute and utter disgrace to yourself, but you will disgrace a party that has worked hard for Scotland.
I have voted Labour all my life and did so this time too, but after this fiasco that is being called an election, I think it will be the last time. It’s sad to see the once great Scottish Labour Party degenerate into the shambles and embarrassment that it has now become and this utter nonsense of mounting a legal challenge by Alan Wilson has really put the icing on the cake for me. I canny see how a party that was once so committed to the rights of the people of Scotland has now turned to trickery and duplicity to try and “change” the result of a democratic election. And before everyone starts shouting and moaning about the election being democratic let me just say this: all the parties were under the exact same conditions, not just Labour!!!
Alan Wilson if you decide to forge ahead with legal action using the Labour party’s backing, then not only will you be an absolute and utter disgrace to yourself, but you will disgrace a party that has worked hard for Scotland.
Posted by: James Brown, Ayr on 9:23am Mon 7 May 07 Jock Tamson's Bairn @ [bold]4:18am[/bold]
My goodness, can't you sleep for crying over losing an election?
Let's clear things up: [bold]firstly[/bold] I do not attack the dead. [bold]Secondly,[/bold] when you rightly chastised me for making a personal comment about you I apologised right away without demur, in spite of your silly accompanying comment about my name. Thirdly, I have the courage and honesty not to hide behind a nom de plume. In the eyes of decent people that gives my comments a greater credence than yours. Jock Tamson's Bairn @ 4:18am
My goodness, can't you sleep for crying over losing an election?
Let's clear things up: firstly I do not attack the dead. Secondly, when you rightly chastised me for making a personal comment about you I apologised right away without demur, in spite of your silly accompanying comment about my name. Thirdly, I have the courage and honesty not to hide behind a nom de plume. In the eyes of decent people that gives my comments a greater credence than yours. Posted by: James Brown, Ayr on 9:28am Mon 7 May 07 Sorry I meant to add to my 9:23am posting -
Lastly, you do not know me and are in no position to make personal comments as you did. It is noticeable that too many postings here (and in The Scotsman) are peppered with high emotion and a standard unionist lexicon (see The Herald Forum topic on this for guidance).
Bad losers, toys out of the pram, spitting out the dummy ... oh dear!
I don't suppose I will get an apology for your bad attitude any more than the people of this country will get an apology from Tony Blair for his wear crimes. Oh to be a unionist .... Sorry I meant to add to my 9:23am posting -
Lastly, you do not know me and are in no position to make personal comments as you did. It is noticeable that too many postings here (and in The Scotsman) are peppered with high emotion and a standard unionist lexicon (see The Herald Forum topic on this for guidance).
Bad losers, toys out of the pram, spitting out the dummy ... oh dear!
I don't suppose I will get an apology for your bad attitude any more than the people of this country will get an apology from Tony Blair for his wear crimes. Oh to be a unionist .... Posted by: JWABZ, Aberdeen on 9:29am Mon 7 May 07 If the other three parties are so confident that the majority of Scottish voters do not want independance, why are they all so against a referendum.
Let's have one and allow the Scottish people to decide on a really major issue for once rather than being told by the politicians "we know what's best for you because you elected us".
Scotland has had it's fill of Jack dancing to Tony and Gordon's tune for long enough.
Let's at least give the SNP a chance, they can hardly do any worse than Labour has over the past number of years. If the other three parties are so confident that the majority of Scottish voters do not want independance, why are they all so against a referendum.
Let's have one and allow the Scottish people to decide on a really major issue for once rather than being told by the politicians "we know what's best for you because you elected us".
Scotland has had it's fill of Jack dancing to Tony and Gordon's tune for long enough.
Let's at least give the SNP a chance, they can hardly do any worse than Labour has over the past number of years. Posted by: Brian on 9:38am Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Peter Cherbi[/bold] wrote:
Is Mike Dailly in charge of the 'get Tommy Sheridan reelected campaign' ? or is this about the wider benefit of having a recount to satisfy human rights violations (such a questionable claim, coming from a scots lawyer these days whose motives may not be what they seem..)[/quote] Would it be a problem if Mike Dailly was in charge of a "get Tommy reelected campaign" if (and it is a big if) reelection was on the basis of properly reflecting the votes? I for one would be delighted if Tommy got back in as he was far more effective than all the other independent MSPs and the SSP, Greens etc..
'Course the effect might be to knock one of the SNP list MSPs out which would please the Unionists. Peter Cherbi wrote:
Is Mike Dailly in charge of the 'get Tommy Sheridan reelected campaign' ? or is this about the wider benefit of having a recount to satisfy human rights violations (such a questionable claim, coming from a scots lawyer these days whose motives may not be what they seem..) Would it be a problem if Mike Dailly was in charge of a "get Tommy reelected campaign" if (and it is a big if) reelection was on the basis of properly reflecting the votes? I for one would be delighted if Tommy got back in as he was far more effective than all the other independent MSPs and the SSP, Greens etc..
'Course the effect might be to knock one of the SNP list MSPs out which would please the Unionists. Posted by: Brian, Bigbrother on 9:40am Mon 7 May 07 Of course the state can tell how you voted - how else would they have been able to identify those who voted for the CPGB in post-war Britain? You don't need to be a conspiracy nut to be a little concerned! Of course the state can tell how you voted - how else would they have been able to identify those who voted for the CPGB in post-war Britain? You don't need to be a conspiracy nut to be a little concerned! Posted by: TheWiseOne, Glasgow on 9:41am Mon 7 May 07 I have several concerns regarding the content of this article.
1. It is totally wrong of the Green Party to demand copies of ballot papers. What about the voter's rights. Should they not be contacted first to give their permission? People do not expect to vote and then have their decisions scrutinised. It makes no difference if the ballot paper was filled in correctly or not.
2. Any re-run of an election, whether partly or wholly, will be affected by the outcome of May 3. People will decide to vote, not on their initial feelings towards the parties, but on the events afterwards.
3. If they decide to re-run a particular area, then the electorate everywhere in Scotland should demand another vote based on what I have descibed above.
4. The lawyer planning to challenge the result claims he has been contacted by several people, out of a total of 9000. That is less than 0.1% which would mean that the remaining 99.9% hace accepted the result. That is what democracy is all about. Remember also that the overwhelming majority of voters managed to complete the forms correctly.
5. It is no surprise to read that Mr Sheridan is fully supporting Mr Dailly. The same Mr Sheridan who stood up for democracy is now opposing the democratic vote. Frankly, it sucks!
It is time to accept the decision of the people and got on with the task which is to lead and serve this nation.
[bold]AND I DID NOT VOTE SNP[/bold] I have several concerns regarding the content of this article.
1. It is totally wrong of the Green Party to demand copies of ballot papers. What about the voter's rights. Should they not be contacted first to give their permission? People do not expect to vote and then have their decisions scrutinised. It makes no difference if the ballot paper was filled in correctly or not.
2. Any re-run of an election, whether partly or wholly, will be affected by the outcome of May 3. People will decide to vote, not on their initial feelings towards the parties, but on the events afterwards.
3. If they decide to re-run a particular area, then the electorate everywhere in Scotland should demand another vote based on what I have descibed above.
4. The lawyer planning to challenge the result claims he has been contacted by several people, out of a total of 9000. That is less than 0.1% which would mean that the remaining 99.9% hace accepted the result. That is what democracy is all about. Remember also that the overwhelming majority of voters managed to complete the forms correctly.
5. It is no surprise to read that Mr Sheridan is fully supporting Mr Dailly. The same Mr Sheridan who stood up for democracy is now opposing the democratic vote. Frankly, it sucks!
It is time to accept the decision of the people and got on with the task which is to lead and serve this nation.
AND I DID NOT VOTE SNP Posted by: Brian on 9:54am Mon 7 May 07 Bold and upper case - shout loudly enough and people will respect you!
Human rights are not about the will of the majority - quite the opposite and quite rightly so.
Points 2 and 3 are well made but point 5 is strange. Bold and upper case - shout loudly enough and people will respect you!
Human rights are not about the will of the majority - quite the opposite and quite rightly so.
Points 2 and 3 are well made but point 5 is strange. Posted by: TheWiseOne, Glasgow on 10:04am Mon 7 May 07 [bold]Posted by: Brian on 9:54am today
'Human rights are not about the will of the majority - quite the opposite and quite rightly so.'[/bold]
I could see the point of a court case if the 9000 people involved had been denied a vote. They were not, therefore I don't see how their human rights were denied. Posted by: Brian on 9:54am today
'Human rights are not about the will of the majority - quite the opposite and quite rightly so.'
I could see the point of a court case if the 9000 people involved had been denied a vote. They were not, therefore I don't see how their human rights were denied. Posted by: Alan Smart, www.youscotland,com on 10:06am Mon 7 May 07 [bold][italic]TheWiseOne[/italic][/bold] - I agree with much of what you say, but we can't just sweep this mess - I mean the worst bit of electoral malpracice in Western Europe for 50 years - under the carpet because the SNP won and you want them to get on with governing.
Alan Wilson. Tommy even the Govan Law Centre might be chancers -indeed the first one defintely is - but voters have [italic]rights[/italic] and effectively 100,000 of them were denied a say in last week's vital a razor tight elections. Would the SNP have won anyway ( probably) would the Greens have got more seats/ ( near definitely) would the Labour establishment be crying foul anyway (definitely). But none of this negates that a serious injustice has been done here.
That is why we need a full and independent international inqury, and after that a full revote if necessary. And I can't think of a better circumstance for the SNP to win decisely and new labour to be finally beaten into history - out of Glasgow as well where the proportion of spoilt papers was highest.
But the main winers would be the people, not just he 100, 000 discouted cheatedt week but he rest of us too, I dont want a privileged vote, just because I understood he ballot paper., I want a fair and equal one .
Sign this petition please and help spread the word
[bold]http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ScottishVoteScandal2007/[/bold] TheWiseOne - I agree with much of what you say, but we can't just sweep this mess - I mean the worst bit of electoral malpracice in Western Europe for 50 years - under the carpet because the SNP won and you want them to get on with governing.
Alan Wilson. Tommy even the Govan Law Centre might be chancers -indeed the first one defintely is - but voters have rights and effectively 100,000 of them were denied a say in last week's vital a razor tight elections. Would the SNP have won anyway ( probably) would the Greens have got more seats/ ( near definitely) would the Labour establishment be crying foul anyway (definitely). But none of this negates that a serious injustice has been done here.
That is why we need a full and independent international inqury, and after that a full revote if necessary. And I can't think of a better circumstance for the SNP to win decisely and new labour to be finally beaten into history - out of Glasgow as well where the proportion of spoilt papers was highest.
But the main winers would be the people, not just he 100, 000 discouted cheatedt week but he rest of us too, I dont want a privileged vote, just because I understood he ballot paper., I want a fair and equal one .
Sign this petition please and help spread the word
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ScottishVoteScandal2007/ Posted by: Robert McClair, BEMUSED on 10:16am Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Lynne[/bold] wrote:
The nationalists are clearly quite happy for this election to count even although the views of over 80,000 voters have not been taken into account. The Labour Party only lost 4 seats, so it is clear that the SNP gained their seats from those that were lost by the small parties. This is a total travesty, and the Labour Party are quite right to challenge the decision in Cunninghame North. For many years, recounts were the order of the date in the constituency of Ayr, hotly contested between the Labour and Conservative Parties, where the majority very often ranged between 60 and 80. Neither of these parties would ever have questioned the other's right to ask for a recount, yet the SNP now accuses anyone questioning anything of 'sour grapes'. Is this the kind of banana republic or brave new world that we now live in, under Alex Salmond? [/quote] LYNNE
You are right when you say that the labour party are able challenge the Cunningham Nth. decision....of that there is no doubt.
You then reduce your position to a hot-headed rant at the SNP for claiming that labour were bad losers........well Lynne, tempers are running high on bothsides and people are saying things that they'll soon regret.. I hope you do too.
Fact is that all the signs are that labour LOST..and wouldn't YOU be writing a post here if the SNP were making claims for re-counts and re-runs if the roles were reversed
Firstly, it's VITAL that we establish what went wrong and who is to blame for this embarrassing fiasco. Heads should (rhetorically) roll for this. However, oyou may need reminding that the man with whom "the buck stops here" is one Douglas Alexander and the party he represents is the labour party. It'd seem to me that a quiet period of introspection is called for by labour party members, who need to come to terms with the fact that it was THEIR respobsibility to ensure that there was NO mal-administration of the new system. All the signs are that Douglas A. chose to ignore some pretty dire warnings of impending disaster, and that he refused to sanction the implementation of back-up safeguards (The Sunday Times covered this really well yesterday) in favour of his own leanings. This smacks of incompetence rather than deliberate deceit, but you should understand that in the immediate aftermath of the debacle, and bearing in mind the narrowness of the result, the preservation of our democratic processes is even MORE important than ever. Thus stamping your feet and attempting to blame Alex Salmond is a bit puerile. Cooler heads are called for I know........but aren't you amazed both that Jack McConnell hasn't (as in the normal order of things) seen fit to congratulate AlexSalmond??Who is the bad loser there?, Nor incidentally has Douglas Alexander seen fit to stick his head above the trench, in his role as the man to whom the public are entitled to seek answers to some VERY searching questions !!!. Lynne wrote:
The nationalists are clearly quite happy for this election to count even although the views of over 80,000 voters have not been taken into account. The Labour Party only lost 4 seats, so it is clear that the SNP gained their seats from those that were lost by the small parties. This is a total travesty, and the Labour Party are quite right to challenge the decision in Cunninghame North. For many years, recounts were the order of the date in the constituency of Ayr, hotly contested between the Labour and Conservative Parties, where the majority very often ranged between 60 and 80. Neither of these parties would ever have questioned the other's right to ask for a recount, yet the SNP now accuses anyone questioning anything of 'sour grapes'. Is this the kind of banana republic or brave new world that we now live in, under Alex Salmond? LYNNE
You are right when you say that the labour party are able challenge the Cunningham Nth. decision....of that there is no doubt.
You then reduce your position to a hot-headed rant at the SNP for claiming that labour were bad losers........well Lynne, tempers are running high on bothsides and people are saying things that they'll soon regret.. I hope you do too.
Fact is that all the signs are that labour LOST..and wouldn't YOU be writing a post here if the SNP were making claims for re-counts and re-runs if the roles were reversed
Firstly, it's VITAL that we establish what went wrong and who is to blame for this embarrassing fiasco. Heads should (rhetorically) roll for this. However, oyou may need reminding that the man with whom "the buck stops here" is one Douglas Alexander and the party he represents is the labour party. It'd seem to me that a quiet period of introspection is called for by labour party members, who need to come to terms with the fact that it was THEIR respobsibility to ensure that there was NO mal-administration of the new system. All the signs are that Douglas A. chose to ignore some pretty dire warnings of impending disaster, and that he refused to sanction the implementation of back-up safeguards (The Sunday Times covered this really well yesterday) in favour of his own leanings. This smacks of incompetence rather than deliberate deceit, but you should understand that in the immediate aftermath of the debacle, and bearing in mind the narrowness of the result, the preservation of our democratic processes is even MORE important than ever. Thus stamping your feet and attempting to blame Alex Salmond is a bit puerile. Cooler heads are called for I know........but aren't you amazed both that Jack McConnell hasn't (as in the normal order of things) seen fit to congratulate AlexSalmond??Who is the bad loser there?, Nor incidentally has Douglas Alexander seen fit to stick his head above the trench, in his role as the man to whom the public are entitled to seek answers to some VERY searching questions !!!. Posted by: Eric Malan on 10:17am Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Alastair[/bold] wrote:
This numpty, Allan Wilson (what a shambles of a speaker he is - Enterprise Minister? FFS someone has a sense of humour!) is only trying to subvert a democratic result, no doubt with the acquiescence of the Labour party. The case is basically "we lost, and that's not meant to happen, ergo there must be something wrong and it needs to be re-run until we win. Can I now request a re-run of last season's 2nd division playoffs because Morton lost 1-0 to a disputed penalty, so obviously it was really a draw as near as makes no difference so... you get my point? Wilson, you lost. Accept it and feck off![/quote] Yes,point made superbly!! Alastair wrote:
This numpty, Allan Wilson (what a shambles of a speaker he is - Enterprise Minister? FFS someone has a sense of humour!) is only trying to subvert a democratic result, no doubt with the acquiescence of the Labour party. The case is basically "we lost, and that's not meant to happen, ergo there must be something wrong and it needs to be re-run until we win. Can I now request a re-run of last season's 2nd division playoffs because Morton lost 1-0 to a disputed penalty, so obviously it was really a draw as near as makes no difference so... you get my point? Wilson, you lost. Accept it and feck off! Yes,point made superbly!! Posted by: Brian on 10:22am Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]TheWiseOne[/bold] wrote:
[bold]Posted by: Brian on 9:54am today 'Human rights are not about the will of the majority - quite the opposite and quite rightly so.'[/bold] I could see the point of a court case if the 9000 people involved had been denied a vote. They were not, therefore I don't see how their human rights were denied. [/quote] I agree you make a strong point. Perhaps the big worry is inconsistency - is it the case that some Returning Officers counted votes where the mark was ambiguous where others would not? For example if on the Holyrood sheets someone put the figure "1" instead of a cross but no other mark is that to be counted? I would say not as you failed to follow the instruction ("put a X") but others I speak to say it should be counted as the intention is clear. Either all ambiguous marks should be rejected or else the election result is down to the whim of one man or woman. TheWiseOne wrote:
Posted by: Brian on 9:54am today 'Human rights are not about the will of the majority - quite the opposite and quite rightly so.' I could see the point of a court case if the 9000 people involved had been denied a vote. They were not, therefore I don't see how their human rights were denied. I agree you make a strong point. Perhaps the big worry is inconsistency - is it the case that some Returning Officers counted votes where the mark was ambiguous where others would not? For example if on the Holyrood sheets someone put the figure "1" instead of a cross but no other mark is that to be counted? I would say not as you failed to follow the instruction ("put a X") but others I speak to say it should be counted as the intention is clear. Either all ambiguous marks should be rejected or else the election result is down to the whim of one man or woman. Posted by: TheWiseOne, Glasgow on 10:23am Mon 7 May 07 [bold]Alan Smart[/bold]
I am certainly behind an enquiry into the whole fiasco, but this does not take away from the fact that the election has been held, the results are known and to suggest a re-run would not be in the best interests of anyone.
Hold an enquiry, learn from the mistakes and ensure it does not happen again. This is the normal method when new processess/initiatives are introduced and things do not go to plan. Alan Smart
I am certainly behind an enquiry into the whole fiasco, but this does not take away from the fact that the election has been held, the results are known and to suggest a re-run would not be in the best interests of anyone.
Hold an enquiry, learn from the mistakes and ensure it does not happen again. This is the normal method when new processess/initiatives are introduced and things do not go to plan. Posted by: Caroline, Stirling on 10:50am Mon 7 May 07 The fiasco over postal votes is certainly a scandal and should be investigated. The other aspect of this scandal, however, is that so many people were unable to understand how to complete their ballot papers. These people were not denied a vote - unless returning officers have ignored papers where the voter's intention was clear. I agree the Council elections should not have taken place on the same day but to argue that the election should be rerun because 100,000 people did not fill in their ballot forms correctly is nonsense. It is a tragedy that these votes could not be counted. The greater tragedy is that such a huge proportion of the electorate didn't vote at all. With turnout in some places at less than 50 per cent, none of the new MSPs should be feeling smug about their majorities. The fiasco over postal votes is certainly a scandal and should be investigated. The other aspect of this scandal, however, is that so many people were unable to understand how to complete their ballot papers. These people were not denied a vote - unless returning officers have ignored papers where the voter's intention was clear. I agree the Council elections should not have taken place on the same day but to argue that the election should be rerun because 100,000 people did not fill in their ballot forms correctly is nonsense. It is a tragedy that these votes could not be counted. The greater tragedy is that such a huge proportion of the electorate didn't vote at all. With turnout in some places at less than 50 per cent, none of the new MSPs should be feeling smug about their majorities. Posted by: Rab on 11:09am Mon 7 May 07 I have only skimmed this article at this point admittedly, but is the basis of the legal challenge of the 'several voters' that they were too stupid to look at and read a ballot paper?
I think I may change my mind and congratulate the inept executive for accidentally inserting a basic intelligence test into the polling booth. I have only skimmed this article at this point admittedly, but is the basis of the legal challenge of the 'several voters' that they were too stupid to look at and read a ballot paper?
I think I may change my mind and congratulate the inept executive for accidentally inserting a basic intelligence test into the polling booth. Posted by: Centurion, Glasgow on 11:17am Mon 7 May 07 Mr Dailly said contacting each of the voters would be possible because the number of the ballot paper is written beside their name when they turn up to vote.
So much for the Secret Ballot. Mr Dailly said contacting each of the voters would be possible because the number of the ballot paper is written beside their name when they turn up to vote.
So much for the Secret Ballot. Posted by: Gordo, Glasgow on 11:23am Mon 7 May 07 What is Mike Dailly saying - it appears to be that a large number of the spoilt papers are from potential Solidarity or Green supporters. So supporters of all other parties were able to understand the papers and vote correctly but not those of the two other parties? If that's the case hell mend them! What is Mike Dailly saying - it appears to be that a large number of the spoilt papers are from potential Solidarity or Green supporters. So supporters of all other parties were able to understand the papers and vote correctly but not those of the two other parties? If that's the case hell mend them! Posted by: David Nummey, London on 11:33am Mon 7 May 07 When are we going to have a statement from Neil Kinnock?
For a Labour grandee - one who was known to be opposed to devolution, let alone independence - to be on the board of DRS (the company providing the electoral accounting equipment) is a somewhat embarassing situation.
Anyone reading the recent DRS (www.drs.co.uk) accounts will be clear that this was a very big job for them. I'm sure that Neil Kinnock 's Labour Connections didn't help them get the job, but surely it would be wise for him to clarify the situation. Otherwise it doesn't look good. When are we going to have a statement from Neil Kinnock?
For a Labour grandee - one who was known to be opposed to devolution, let alone independence - to be on the board of DRS (the company providing the electoral accounting equipment) is a somewhat embarassing situation.
Anyone reading the recent DRS (www.drs.co.uk) accounts will be clear that this was a very big job for them. I'm sure that Neil Kinnock 's Labour Connections didn't help them get the job, but surely it would be wise for him to clarify the situation. Otherwise it doesn't look good. Posted by: Michael Strachan, Fraserburgh on 11:50am Mon 7 May 07 Lets get this straight - SNP leader calls for a recount in Aberdeen when his candidate loses by a few hundred votes (with a higher number of spoint papers) and thats alright.
Labour call for a recount when they lose by 48 votes with a greater amount of spoilt papers as well as evidence suggesting foul play thats just childish?
The SNP are showing their commitment to democracy by trying to grip on to a parliamentary seat that they may not be entitled to. If Labour are just being childish, surely the SNP have got nothing to worry about?
Also, I really do hope that the Govan legal challage is taken up. The SNP made most of their gains from the deline of 'other parties'. If the Govan Law Society is anything to go by, the SNP were not entitled to all those list seats they gained from Glasgow.
Looks like these National 'Socialists' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933...
Lets get this straight - SNP leader calls for a recount in Aberdeen when his candidate loses by a few hundred votes (with a higher number of spoint papers) and thats alright.
Labour call for a recount when they lose by 48 votes with a greater amount of spoilt papers as well as evidence suggesting foul play thats just childish?
The SNP are showing their commitment to democracy by trying to grip on to a parliamentary seat that they may not be entitled to. If Labour are just being childish, surely the SNP have got nothing to worry about?
Also, I really do hope that the Govan legal challage is taken up. The SNP made most of their gains from the deline of 'other parties'. If the Govan Law Society is anything to go by, the SNP were not entitled to all those list seats they gained from Glasgow.
Looks like these National 'Socialists' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933...
Posted by: Andy, Fort William on 11:56am Mon 7 May 07 Perhaps with all this hot headed SNP v Labour rot, lets sit down and see who the real losers are; the people. We are supposed to live in a democracy, but Scotland has shown the world we are anything but. We have an overlord in Westminster which bends over backwards to make sure that our Parliament in Edinburgh is ridiculed at every opportunity. The way in which this Parliament has been elected has been rigged as an affront to democracy by both Westminster and their lackeys here in Scotland.
Short of calling for a complete re-run of the whole parliamentary election I do believe that in constituencies where the majority is less than that of the number of spoilt ballot papers, then there should be a by-election there. Allan Wilson lost by only 48 votes and I can understand his feelings of frustration. I am and always have been a supporter of the SNP, but first and foremost I am a democrat, and democracy must take first place before petty party politics.
As for those who insult the intelligence of the electorate in saying that they are incapable of reading the ballot papers. I say to you, have you never been confused? Have you never made a mistake? Have you never been led up the garden path? Were the pathes to the ballot boxes not strewn with deliberate traps in the first place, our country would not be seen today as a basket case in the eyes of the democratic world. Perhaps with all this hot headed SNP v Labour rot, lets sit down and see who the real losers are; the people. We are supposed to live in a democracy, but Scotland has shown the world we are anything but. We have an overlord in Westminster which bends over backwards to make sure that our Parliament in Edinburgh is ridiculed at every opportunity. The way in which this Parliament has been elected has been rigged as an affront to democracy by both Westminster and their lackeys here in Scotland.
Short of calling for a complete re-run of the whole parliamentary election I do believe that in constituencies where the majority is less than that of the number of spoilt ballot papers, then there should be a by-election there. Allan Wilson lost by only 48 votes and I can understand his feelings of frustration. I am and always have been a supporter of the SNP, but first and foremost I am a democrat, and democracy must take first place before petty party politics.
As for those who insult the intelligence of the electorate in saying that they are incapable of reading the ballot papers. I say to you, have you never been confused? Have you never made a mistake? Have you never been led up the garden path? Were the pathes to the ballot boxes not strewn with deliberate traps in the first place, our country would not be seen today as a basket case in the eyes of the democratic world. Posted by: Rab on 12:03pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Michael Strachan[/bold] wrote:
Lets get this straight - SNP leader calls for a recount in Aberdeen when his candidate loses by a few hundred votes (with a higher number of spoint papers) and thats alright.
Labour call for a recount when they lose by 48 votes with a greater amount of spoilt papers as well as evidence suggesting foul play thats just childish?
The SNP are showing their commitment to democracy by trying to grip on to a parliamentary seat that they may not be entitled to. If Labour are just being childish, surely the SNP have got nothing to worry about?
Also, I really do hope that the Govan legal challage is taken up. The SNP made most of their gains from the deline of 'other parties'. If the Govan Law Society is anything to go by, the SNP were not entitled to all those list seats they gained from Glasgow.
Looks like these National 'Socialists' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933...
[/quote] Listen.
I say as an SNP supporter.....RE-RUN the whole election!
Now that the fear has been broken and NuLabour have been shown up as the petty 'stairheed hairies' they actually are, I am confident that the SNP would romp it.
Bring it on, never mind the silly legal challenges which only serve to make NuLabour look the sore losers we know them to be. Michael Strachan wrote:
Lets get this straight - SNP leader calls for a recount in Aberdeen when his candidate loses by a few hundred votes (with a higher number of spoint papers) and thats alright.
Labour call for a recount when they lose by 48 votes with a greater amount of spoilt papers as well as evidence suggesting foul play thats just childish?
The SNP are showing their commitment to democracy by trying to grip on to a parliamentary seat that they may not be entitled to. If Labour are just being childish, surely the SNP have got nothing to worry about?
Also, I really do hope that the Govan legal challage is taken up. The SNP made most of their gains from the deline of 'other parties'. If the Govan Law Society is anything to go by, the SNP were not entitled to all those list seats they gained from Glasgow.
Looks like these National 'Socialists' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933...
Listen.
I say as an SNP supporter.....RE-RUN the whole election!
Now that the fear has been broken and NuLabour have been shown up as the petty 'stairheed hairies' they actually are, I am confident that the SNP would romp it.
Bring it on, never mind the silly legal challenges which only serve to make NuLabour look the sore losers we know them to be. Posted by: Andy, Fort William on 12:04pm Mon 7 May 07 Michael from Fraserburgh, your comments are an insult to the millions who voted for the SNP. To even try to associate the SNP with the NSPD (The Nazi Party) is the lowest I have seen an anti-SNP bigot slither. Remember it is the Labour Party in Westminster who decided how Scotland's Parliament should be elected. Don't blame the SNP when things go breasts-skywards! Michael from Fraserburgh, your comments are an insult to the millions who voted for the SNP. To even try to associate the SNP with the NSPD (The Nazi Party) is the lowest I have seen an anti-SNP bigot slither. Remember it is the Labour Party in Westminster who decided how Scotland's Parliament should be elected. Don't blame the SNP when things go breasts-skywards! Posted by: Rab on 12:07pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Michael Strachan[/bold] wrote:
Lets get this straight - SNP leader calls for a recount in Aberdeen when his candidate loses by a few hundred votes (with a higher number of spoint papers) and thats alright.
Labour call for a recount when they lose by 48 votes with a greater amount of spoilt papers as well as evidence suggesting foul play thats just childish?
The SNP are showing their commitment to democracy by trying to grip on to a parliamentary seat that they may not be entitled to. If Labour are just being childish, surely the SNP have got nothing to worry about?
Also, I really do hope that the Govan legal challage is taken up. The SNP made most of their gains from the deline of 'other parties'. If the Govan Law Society is anything to go by, the SNP were not entitled to all those list seats they gained from Glasgow.
Looks like these National 'Socialists' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933...
[/quote] [bold]Looks like these National 'Socialists' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933...
[/bold]
Is anyone else heart sick of this particularly sick innuendo and smear?
My father and Grandfather fought fascism in WW11 and were supporters of the SNP, they were no more fascist than I am.
Time to lose this scandalous slur, probably the nastiest one that NuLabour and it's supporters throw around.
There is a deal of difference between some gentle name calling and the inference that nationalists are fascists.
Stop it now. Michael Strachan wrote:
Lets get this straight - SNP leader calls for a recount in Aberdeen when his candidate loses by a few hundred votes (with a higher number of spoint papers) and thats alright.
Labour call for a recount when they lose by 48 votes with a greater amount of spoilt papers as well as evidence suggesting foul play thats just childish?
The SNP are showing their commitment to democracy by trying to grip on to a parliamentary seat that they may not be entitled to. If Labour are just being childish, surely the SNP have got nothing to worry about?
Also, I really do hope that the Govan legal challage is taken up. The SNP made most of their gains from the deline of 'other parties'. If the Govan Law Society is anything to go by, the SNP were not entitled to all those list seats they gained from Glasgow.
Looks like these National 'Socialists' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933...
Looks like these National 'Socialists' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933...
Is anyone else heart sick of this particularly sick innuendo and smear?
My father and Grandfather fought fascism in WW11 and were supporters of the SNP, they were no more fascist than I am.
Time to lose this scandalous slur, probably the nastiest one that NuLabour and it's supporters throw around.
There is a deal of difference between some gentle name calling and the inference that nationalists are fascists.
Stop it now. Posted by: THOROUGHLY BEMUSED, AND SUSPICIOUS on 12:12pm Mon 7 May 07
I've never been a conspiracy theorist in my life.
Not JFK
Not Moon Landing
Not Roswell
Not Shergar
Not.....................(well, make up your own list)
HOWEVER, the more I see of this, the more I smell a rat.............labour under pressure...........Neil Kinnock and DRS......postal voters left out.........Refused safeguards in system.....etc, etc.................................it's clear that SOMEONE didn't do their job.....with Douglas Alexander (hasn't HE gone quiet for once)...seemingly the main man.
WE NEED A FULL JUDICIAL ENQUIRY.........NOW
I've never been a conspiracy theorist in my life.
Not JFK
Not Moon Landing
Not Roswell
Not Shergar
Not.....................(well, make up your own list)
HOWEVER, the more I see of this, the more I smell a rat.............labour under pressure...........Neil Kinnock and DRS......postal voters left out.........Refused safeguards in system.....etc, etc.................................it's clear that SOMEONE didn't do their job.....with Douglas Alexander (hasn't HE gone quiet for once)...seemingly the main man.
WE NEED A FULL JUDICIAL ENQUIRY.........NOW Posted by: AncientHabbie, Wirral, Merseyside on 12:12pm Mon 7 May 07 Lynne, Glasgow.
I was at the count for the two Paisley seats and West Renfrewshire, where there were approximately 2,700 rejected votes in total. Labour and SNP noticed, in fact pointed out to each other, what was happening with the Parliamentary ballot paper. Lots and lots of folk were voting twice on the the Regional list and not on the Constituency paper. All parties were affected by this, but mainly the SNP and Labour parties. The ballot paper could have been confusing if it wasn't read properly. At the very top it said "You have [bold]two[/bold] votes only" and then above the column on on each paper where the cross was to be put, it said, "Vote only once". Clear enough if you take your time. It is the voter's responsibility to ensure they understand the paper before voting and if they had any doubts they could have asked the staff. Once they had put their 2 crosses on the Regional list ballot paper, they had invalidated their paper.
As I said the SNP and Labour were the main, but not exclusive, losers in this. Do you really want to re-run Cunninghame North and run the risk of increasing the SNP majority. Funny that the SNP aren't challenging the Kelvin result, where the ballots rejected and the Labour majority were almost the same.
Additionally, the system chosen to run this election is automated, so any recount should use the same system as the original count i.e. run all the ballot papers through the scanners again and follow the same process as the original count. If a manual recount is ordered by the courts, then we can look forward to all the automated counts being challenged and if successful, then being recounted by hand.
I the meantime, who is running the country? Lynne, Glasgow.
I was at the count for the two Paisley seats and West Renfrewshire, where there were approximately 2,700 rejected votes in total. Labour and SNP noticed, in fact pointed out to each other, what was happening with the Parliamentary ballot paper. Lots and lots of folk were voting twice on the the Regional list and not on the Constituency paper. All parties were affected by this, but mainly the SNP and Labour parties. The ballot paper could have been confusing if it wasn't read properly. At the very top it said "You have two votes only" and then above the column on on each paper where the cross was to be put, it said, "Vote only once". Clear enough if you take your time. It is the voter's responsibility to ensure they understand the paper before voting and if they had any doubts they could have asked the staff. Once they had put their 2 crosses on the Regional list ballot paper, they had invalidated their paper.
As I said the SNP and Labour were the main, but not exclusive, losers in this. Do you really want to re-run Cunninghame North and run the risk of increasing the SNP majority. Funny that the SNP aren't challenging the Kelvin result, where the ballots rejected and the Labour majority were almost the same.
Additionally, the system chosen to run this election is automated, so any recount should use the same system as the original count i.e. run all the ballot papers through the scanners again and follow the same process as the original count. If a manual recount is ordered by the courts, then we can look forward to all the automated counts being challenged and if successful, then being recounted by hand.
I the meantime, who is running the country? Posted by: Glutton for punishment, surfing on 12:16pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Craig[/bold] wrote:
[bold] Since when was it possible for the goverment able to tell who people voted for? Is there nobody else concerned about this?[/bold] [/quote] Bar codes against voting papers etc? You bet I'm concerned. If spoiled ballot papers are going to be checked, I would like a check on all non-spoiled papers, or rather those DEEMED to be non-spoiled and allowed. A total farce. Let's have another election. Craig wrote:
Since when was it possible for the goverment able to tell who people voted for? Is there nobody else concerned about this? Bar codes against voting papers etc? You bet I'm concerned. If spoiled ballot papers are going to be checked, I would like a check on all non-spoiled papers, or rather those DEEMED to be non-spoiled and allowed. A total farce. Let's have another election. Posted by: Paul, paisley on 12:21pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Bob Linklater[/bold] wrote:
The SNP administration is knacked before it\'s even begun.
Let\'s see the dopey squad run by that smug p r i c k Salmond dodge along for the next 18 months and then have to apologose to Scotland for the baws he\'s made of things.
Scotland has spoken and they don\'t want independence - otherwise the SNP would have a lot more seats and Labour ould have lost more than 4.[/quote] Smug? Isn't that why the Scottish people rejected the 5 decade hegemony of the unbeatable Neo Con Labour party? My definition of a **** is a sharp device to burst over-inflated balloons - you could be right there Bob! Bob Linklater wrote:
The SNP administration is knacked before it\'s even begun.
Let\'s see the dopey squad run by that smug p r i c k Salmond dodge along for the next 18 months and then have to apologose to Scotland for the baws he\'s made of things.
Scotland has spoken and they don\'t want independence - otherwise the SNP would have a lot more seats and Labour ould have lost more than 4. Smug? Isn't that why the Scottish people rejected the 5 decade hegemony of the unbeatable Neo Con Labour party? My definition of a **** is a sharp device to burst over-inflated balloons - you could be right there Bob! Posted by: Bill, Cambuslang on 12:25pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Craig[/bold] wrote:
[bold] Since when was it possible for the goverment able to tell who people voted for? Is there nobody else concerned about this?[/bold] [/quote] In all this brouhaha, I think you have come up with the most salient point Craig. (Although Glutton’s solution to this is perhaps a bit extreme)
For me one of the inalienable rights of a voter is the right to have his/her vote kept secret. I voted on the Glasgow Regional List and I don’t want my vote made public. I have dropped the Returning Officer a letter to that effect. I have Human Rights too and I don’t want the state interfering with my rights (Articles 8 & 10 and possibly 9 of the convention – I’ll look up their equivalent in the Act later). Craig wrote:
Since when was it possible for the goverment able to tell who people voted for? Is there nobody else concerned about this? In all this brouhaha, I think you have come up with the most salient point Craig. (Although Glutton’s solution to this is perhaps a bit extreme)
For me one of the inalienable rights of a voter is the right to have his/her vote kept secret. I voted on the Glasgow Regional List and I don’t want my vote made public. I have dropped the Returning Officer a letter to that effect. I have Human Rights too and I don’t want the state interfering with my rights (Articles 8 & 10 and possibly 9 of the convention – I’ll look up their equivalent in the Act later). Posted by: paul, paisley on 12:26pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Michael Strachan[/bold] wrote:
Lets get this straight - SNP leader calls for a recount in Aberdeen when his candidate loses by a few hundred votes (with a higher number of spoint papers) and thats alright.
Labour call for a recount when they lose by 48 votes with a greater amount of spoilt papers as well as evidence suggesting foul play thats just childish?
The SNP are showing their commitment to democracy by trying to grip on to a parliamentary seat that they may not be entitled to. If Labour are just being childish, surely the SNP have got nothing to worry about?
Also, I really do hope that the Govan legal challage is taken up. The SNP made most of their gains from the deline of \'other parties\'. If the Govan Law Society is anything to go by, the SNP were not entitled to all those list seats they gained from Glasgow.
Looks like these National \'Socialists\' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933...
[/quote] Shame on you MIchael, shame on you. Hegemony broken, fear engendered and now shameful correlations thrown from a pram. Michael Strachan wrote:
Lets get this straight - SNP leader calls for a recount in Aberdeen when his candidate loses by a few hundred votes (with a higher number of spoint papers) and thats alright.
Labour call for a recount when they lose by 48 votes with a greater amount of spoilt papers as well as evidence suggesting foul play thats just childish?
The SNP are showing their commitment to democracy by trying to grip on to a parliamentary seat that they may not be entitled to. If Labour are just being childish, surely the SNP have got nothing to worry about?
Also, I really do hope that the Govan legal challage is taken up. The SNP made most of their gains from the deline of \'other parties\'. If the Govan Law Society is anything to go by, the SNP were not entitled to all those list seats they gained from Glasgow.
Looks like these National \'Socialists\' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933...
Shame on you MIchael, shame on you. Hegemony broken, fear engendered and now shameful correlations thrown from a pram. Posted by: Lynne, Glasgow on 12:33pm Mon 7 May 07 It is looking increasingly likely that we are in for a period of minority government by the SNP and as a result, instability, because the other parties will have a field day running rings round their legislative programme. How is that going to convince people that the SNP could run an independent Scotland? Salmond should have offered the Lib Dems a deal that didn't even smell of an independence referendum, then at the next election in four years we could have all decided how well the SNP can govern. The people (whatever else they did vote for) certainly did not vote for independence). Re-running the election now might mean an increased vote for the SNP, but maybe not. If the SNP are so sure that the people have spoken then they should not be afraid of allowing those whose votes were discounted to actually have a say in the running of the country. It might mean that some of the smaller parties that many people tried to vote for will gain a voice in the Scottish Parliament - maybe even Tommy Sheridan. And it's all very well to blame the Labour Party for the shambles, but that doesn't do anything about putting it right.
It is looking increasingly likely that we are in for a period of minority government by the SNP and as a result, instability, because the other parties will have a field day running rings round their legislative programme. How is that going to convince people that the SNP could run an independent Scotland? Salmond should have offered the Lib Dems a deal that didn't even smell of an independence referendum, then at the next election in four years we could have all decided how well the SNP can govern. The people (whatever else they did vote for) certainly did not vote for independence). Re-running the election now might mean an increased vote for the SNP, but maybe not. If the SNP are so sure that the people have spoken then they should not be afraid of allowing those whose votes were discounted to actually have a say in the running of the country. It might mean that some of the smaller parties that many people tried to vote for will gain a voice in the Scottish Parliament - maybe even Tommy Sheridan. And it's all very well to blame the Labour Party for the shambles, but that doesn't do anything about putting it right.
Posted by: Teacher, Staffroom on 12:34pm Mon 7 May 07 Let's pretend the election was an important exam. Normally all instructions are at the top, not buried away at the bottom. (eg...do not fold). If you're with me so far, ASK YOURSELF AND ANSWER TRUTHFULLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, but BEFORE you do, read ALL the questions and instructions. This is important!
1: Who won the election?
2: Who came 2nd?
3: Who came 3rd?
4: Should there be a referendum?
5: Is A Salmond the best choice for First Minister?
6: Should the spoiled papers be re-counted?
7: Would you vote in a re-election?
8: Would you change your vote?
9: Are you likely to vote the same way in a British election?
10: DO NOT ANSWER ANY OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS, NEITHER TO YOURSELF, NOR OUT LOUD.
Did you all pass this simple exam?
I'd be interested in a respose. Let's pretend the election was an important exam. Normally all instructions are at the top, not buried away at the bottom. (eg...do not fold). If you're with me so far, ASK YOURSELF AND ANSWER TRUTHFULLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, but BEFORE you do, read ALL the questions and instructions. This is important!
1: Who won the election?
2: Who came 2nd?
3: Who came 3rd?
4: Should there be a referendum?
5: Is A Salmond the best choice for First Minister?
6: Should the spoiled papers be re-counted?
7: Would you vote in a re-election?
8: Would you change your vote?
9: Are you likely to vote the same way in a British election?
10: DO NOT ANSWER ANY OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS, NEITHER TO YOURSELF, NOR OUT LOUD.
Did you all pass this simple exam?
I'd be interested in a respose. Posted by: Greig, 117-548 on 12:38pm Mon 7 May 07 How stupid are unionists, they want to mount alegal challenge based on this
"Mr Dailly said he planned to raise his legal challenge under Article 3 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees that citizens should have the conditions in which to express freely their views in an election."
And they want to deny Scotland a referendum.
Go for it you will soon realise that one sword has two edges How stupid are unionists, they want to mount alegal challenge based on this
"Mr Dailly said he planned to raise his legal challenge under Article 3 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees that citizens should have the conditions in which to express freely their views in an election."
And they want to deny Scotland a referendum.
Go for it you will soon realise that one sword has two edges Posted by: Lachie Mor MacDougall, Fort William on 12:41pm Mon 7 May 07 I can't believe there are still Labour numpties out there comparing the SNP to the Nazis. Nationalism is a love of one's country. Norway is strongly Nationalistic but you'd never compare Norway to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany was not Nationalist but [bold]CHAUVINIST[/bold] Chauvinism is a belief you're better than everyone else and to say the people of Scotland are Chavinist is a GROSS INSULT from a bunch of sore losers. I doubt many Labour supporters believe you Numpties. I can't believe there are still Labour numpties out there comparing the SNP to the Nazis. Nationalism is a love of one's country. Norway is strongly Nationalistic but you'd never compare Norway to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany was not Nationalist but CHAUVINIST Chauvinism is a belief you're better than everyone else and to say the people of Scotland are Chavinist is a GROSS INSULT from a bunch of sore losers. I doubt many Labour supporters believe you Numpties. Posted by: AncientHabbie, Wirral, Merseyside on 12:46pm Mon 7 May 07 Michael Strachan
1) There already has been a recount in Cunninghame North on Friday morning and the SNP majority increased from 15 to 48. What Labour want is a manual recount. Why? I don't know, because the system employed for these elections was automated.
2) The 10,000 rejected regional list votes in Glasgow were not all Labour's. All parties suffered from some folk not understanding the Parliamentary ballot paper, but mainly the SNP and Labour. So, many, many of these rejected papers would have been meant to be SNP votes.
3) It was the Labour Party in the shape of [bold]Douglas Alexander[/bold] and David Cairns that brought in this new method of counting votes and agreed the new ballot paper with DRS (the company that makes the equipmemt). Get stuck intae them for this shambles no' the political parties. Michael Strachan
1) There already has been a recount in Cunninghame North on Friday morning and the SNP majority increased from 15 to 48. What Labour want is a manual recount. Why? I don't know, because the system employed for these elections was automated.
2) The 10,000 rejected regional list votes in Glasgow were not all Labour's. All parties suffered from some folk not understanding the Parliamentary ballot paper, but mainly the SNP and Labour. So, many, many of these rejected papers would have been meant to be SNP votes.
3) It was the Labour Party in the shape of Douglas Alexander and David Cairns that brought in this new method of counting votes and agreed the new ballot paper with DRS (the company that makes the equipmemt). Get stuck intae them for this shambles no' the political parties. Posted by: AncientHabbie, Wirral, Merseyside on 12:57pm Mon 7 May 07 Lynne, Glasgow. You say.......
"It is looking increasingly likely that we are in for a period of minority government by the SNP and as a result, instability, because the other parties will have a field day running rings round their legislative programme. [bold]How is that going to convince people that the SNP could run an independent Scotland?"[/bold]
You've missed the point completely. Whilst the SNP would like to run an independent Scotland any party, including yours, could be the government of an independent Scotland after the first elections to that parliament. After the negotiated settlement is completed, elections would be held - no interference from London any more -and any party could win. You better start getting your policies drafted, because it is not so many years away now. Lynne, Glasgow. You say.......
"It is looking increasingly likely that we are in for a period of minority government by the SNP and as a result, instability, because the other parties will have a field day running rings round their legislative programme. How is that going to convince people that the SNP could run an independent Scotland?"
You've missed the point completely. Whilst the SNP would like to run an independent Scotland any party, including yours, could be the government of an independent Scotland after the first elections to that parliament. After the negotiated settlement is completed, elections would be held - no interference from London any more -and any party could win. You better start getting your policies drafted, because it is not so many years away now. Posted by: Greig on 1:04pm Mon 7 May 07 Lynne, Glasgow. You say.......
"It is looking increasingly likely that we are in for a period of minority government by the SNP and as a result, instability, because the other parties will have a field day running rings round their legislative programme. How is that going to convince people that the SNP could run an independent Scotland?"
What you are really saying is, the other parties hace so little respect for Scotland people they will work to bring down an elected government for short term self gratification.
They then have no mandate left to claim to represent the people, if they are willing to deprive them of their choice.
The attitudes of unionists in Scotland is now taking on the ugly mantle of unionists in Northern Ireland.
Biggoted and Blind Lynne, Glasgow. You say.......
"It is looking increasingly likely that we are in for a period of minority government by the SNP and as a result, instability, because the other parties will have a field day running rings round their legislative programme. How is that going to convince people that the SNP could run an independent Scotland?"
What you are really saying is, the other parties hace so little respect for Scotland people they will work to bring down an elected government for short term self gratification.
They then have no mandate left to claim to represent the people, if they are willing to deprive them of their choice.
The attitudes of unionists in Scotland is now taking on the ugly mantle of unionists in Northern Ireland.
Biggoted and Blind Posted by: Iain Morrison, Nairn on 1:19pm Mon 7 May 07 Lynne- Before rattling off the nonsense you posted (Attached)you would do well to consider some facts (hard for a labourite I guess) 1Labour designed and ran the election 2 If I had voted Labour, I would take offence at the Alan Wilson stance which seems to imply that Labour voters are somehow thicker than SNP voters and were therefore put at greater disadvantage by the pigs ear the Labour led executive and labour Scottish Office(No one else is to blame)made of the election.3 Why are the discounted votes in Glasgow more important than anywhere else 4 In a secret ballot it strikes me as a bit Gordon Brown (Stalinist), to say nothing of humuliating,to contact voters about their ballots. How do we avoid these peoples alledged intentions not being led or bought by the Lawers or the people they represent.In a free democracey this information is meant to be private. If the lawers wish to make a public appeal for electors to come forward and trace the votes from that direction accross the whole of Scotland then no-one could object .
Lynnes Tosh - The nationalists are clearly quite happy for this election to count even although the views of over 80,000 voters have not been taken into account. The Labour Party only lost 4 seats, so it is clear that the SNP gained their seats from those that were lost by the small parties. This is a total travesty, and the Labour Party are quite right to challenge the decision in Cunninghame North. For many years, recounts were the order of the date in the constituency of Ayr, hotly contested between the Labour and Conservative Parties, where the majority very often ranged between 60 and 80. Neither of these parties would ever have questioned the other's right to ask for a recount, yet the SNP now accuses anyone questioning anything of 'sour grapes'. Is this the kind of banana republic or brave new world that we now live in, under Alex Salmond? Lynne- Before rattling off the nonsense you posted (Attached)you would do well to consider some facts (hard for a labourite I guess) 1Labour designed and ran the election 2 If I had voted Labour, I would take offence at the Alan Wilson stance which seems to imply that Labour voters are somehow thicker than SNP voters and were therefore put at greater disadvantage by the pigs ear the Labour led executive and labour Scottish Office(No one else is to blame)made of the election.3 Why are the discounted votes in Glasgow more important than anywhere else 4 In a secret ballot it strikes me as a bit Gordon Brown (Stalinist), to say nothing of humuliating,to contact voters about their ballots. How do we avoid these peoples alledged intentions not being led or bought by the Lawers or the people they represent.In a free democracey this information is meant to be private. If the lawers wish to make a public appeal for electors to come forward and trace the votes from that direction accross the whole of Scotland then no-one could object .
Lynnes Tosh - The nationalists are clearly quite happy for this election to count even although the views of over 80,000 voters have not been taken into account. The Labour Party only lost 4 seats, so it is clear that the SNP gained their seats from those that were lost by the small parties. This is a total travesty, and the Labour Party are quite right to challenge the decision in Cunninghame North. For many years, recounts were the order of the date in the constituency of Ayr, hotly contested between the Labour and Conservative Parties, where the majority very often ranged between 60 and 80. Neither of these parties would ever have questioned the other's right to ask for a recount, yet the SNP now accuses anyone questioning anything of 'sour grapes'. Is this the kind of banana republic or brave new world that we now live in, under Alex Salmond? Posted by: Lachie Mor MacDougall, Fort William on 1:21pm Mon 7 May 07 Rab and Andy you are quite right. This type of name calling from Michael Strachan is quite displicable. To say that the SNP are Nazis, when Nationalists all over Europe fought the Chauvinist NAZIS of Germany.. It makes you wonder at what insidious steps these Labour numpties will go to. Just shows what creeps they are. Rab and Andy you are quite right. This type of name calling from Michael Strachan is quite displicable. To say that the SNP are Nazis, when Nationalists all over Europe fought the Chauvinist NAZIS of Germany.. It makes you wonder at what insidious steps these Labour numpties will go to. Just shows what creeps they are. Posted by: Mr. Lachie Todd, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K. on 1:46pm Mon 7 May 07 I have yet to hear the indigenous Conservative Party. or any of its candidates, complain about the alleged number of rejected ballots?
I wonder why? Lachie Todd I have yet to hear the indigenous Conservative Party. or any of its candidates, complain about the alleged number of rejected ballots?
I wonder why? Lachie Todd Posted by: Rab on 2:23pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Mr. Lachie Todd[/bold] wrote:
I have yet to hear the indigenous Conservative Party. or any of its candidates, complain about the alleged number of rejected ballots?
I wonder why? Lachie Todd[/quote] I am constantly puzzled by the attitudes of the Scots Tories.
An independent Scotland would be quite fertile ground for a rejuvenated Tory party.
It is not all that long ago that they could have held sway in Scotland and they could do so again to some extent in my view.
I hasten to add that it would be 'over my dead body' ....but the ballot box rules!!!
I am still having a party the day the 'evil one' pops her clogs. Mr. Lachie Todd wrote:
I have yet to hear the indigenous Conservative Party. or any of its candidates, complain about the alleged number of rejected ballots?
I wonder why? Lachie Todd I am constantly puzzled by the attitudes of the Scots Tories.
An independent Scotland would be quite fertile ground for a rejuvenated Tory party.
It is not all that long ago that they could have held sway in Scotland and they could do so again to some extent in my view.
I hasten to add that it would be 'over my dead body' ....but the ballot box rules!!!
I am still having a party the day the 'evil one' pops her clogs. Posted by: Chris, Irvine on 2:25pm Mon 7 May 07 Mike Dailly is a blatant Sheridanite and a fellow egomaniac. In 2003, Tommy asked the SSP's Govan branch if they minded if Govan lawyer Mike stood for election for Govan constituency SSP candidate. The branch agreed and he was chosen over an SWP stooge (back when the SWs and Tommy were rivals). But when Mike found out SSP constituency candidates stood no chance of winning, he threw his dummy out of the pram and refused to stand after all. He didn't even bother telling the branch - he never got back in touch. They re-chose a local firefighter. Then, during Tommy's court case, where he managed to convince a couple of jurors that he was telling the truth(!), a letter in [italic]The Herald[/italic] proclaimed Tommy's Lordship and cast doubt on the integrity of the SSP's honest MSPs. The writer's name: Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre. Crowning Tommy an MSP at this man's pleasure (how many ordinary Govan folks' cases will be put on the back burner cos of this case, Mike?) will only make Sheridan's fall-from-grace all the more spectacular when he is jailed for his various crimes against justice. I'm no fan of the business-hugging Greens (though the environment is my number one priority) but Patrick Harvie has been elected. That's that! If we're gonna start re-counting votes, then count the lot, Scotlandwide. Glasgow is not more important than Scotland. And Mike Dailly/Solidarity members, take note, [bold]Tommy Sheridan is not more important than any other socialist[/bold] . Mike Dailly is a blatant Sheridanite and a fellow egomaniac. In 2003, Tommy asked the SSP's Govan branch if they minded if Govan lawyer Mike stood for election for Govan constituency SSP candidate. The branch agreed and he was chosen over an SWP stooge (back when the SWs and Tommy were rivals). But when Mike found out SSP constituency candidates stood no chance of winning, he threw his dummy out of the pram and refused to stand after all. He didn't even bother telling the branch - he never got back in touch. They re-chose a local firefighter. Then, during Tommy's court case, where he managed to convince a couple of jurors that he was telling the truth(!), a letter in The Herald proclaimed Tommy's Lordship and cast doubt on the integrity of the SSP's honest MSPs. The writer's name: Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre. Crowning Tommy an MSP at this man's pleasure (how many ordinary Govan folks' cases will be put on the back burner cos of this case, Mike?) will only make Sheridan's fall-from-grace all the more spectacular when he is jailed for his various crimes against justice. I'm no fan of the business-hugging Greens (though the environment is my number one priority) but Patrick Harvie has been elected. That's that! If we're gonna start re-counting votes, then count the lot, Scotlandwide. Glasgow is not more important than Scotland. And Mike Dailly/Solidarity members, take note, Tommy Sheridan is not more important than any other socialist . Posted by: Scott Harvie, Wishaw, Scotland on 2:31pm Mon 7 May 07 The arrogance of the labour party knows no bounds, they still seem to believe they have some sort of divine right to rule Scotland. They came SECOND in this election by more than 50,000 votes.. so unhappy with the result and its off to the courts, know doubt in an attempt to claim that the tens of thousands of rejected papers should be counted as labour votes.
Their refusal to admit defeat, and the lib dems determination to assist them, will do Scotland no favours.
Does Scotland now need UN monitors to ensure the election results are honoured, or perhaps UN peacekeeping forces for when bliar/brown and wee jack attempt to regain power in a coup?
Labour lost and the SNP won, its time to honour the result and move Scotland forward after 50 years of labour misrule. The arrogance of the labour party knows no bounds, they still seem to believe they have some sort of divine right to rule Scotland. They came SECOND in this election by more than 50,000 votes.. so unhappy with the result and its off to the courts, know doubt in an attempt to claim that the tens of thousands of rejected papers should be counted as labour votes.
Their refusal to admit defeat, and the lib dems determination to assist them, will do Scotland no favours.
Does Scotland now need UN monitors to ensure the election results are honoured, or perhaps UN peacekeeping forces for when bliar/brown and wee jack attempt to regain power in a coup?
Labour lost and the SNP won, its time to honour the result and move Scotland forward after 50 years of labour misrule. Posted by: Gregor Addison, Scotland on 3:18pm Mon 7 May 07 I took a free peek inside the Daily Record today (since I'd never buy it) and noticed they have a big headline: "Scupper the Nats". Nice to see the democratic press taking such an interest in the election, isn't it? I took a free peek inside the Daily Record today (since I'd never buy it) and noticed they have a big headline: "Scupper the Nats". Nice to see the democratic press taking such an interest in the election, isn't it? Posted by: Angry_Voter, Glasgow on 3:58pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Chris[/bold] wrote:
Mike Dailly is a blatant Sheridanite and a fellow egomaniac. In 2003, Tommy asked the SSP\'s Govan branch if they minded if Govan lawyer Mike stood for election for Govan constituency SSP candidate. The branch agreed and he was chosen over an SWP stooge (back when the SWs and Tommy were rivals). But when Mike found out SSP constituency candidates stood no chance of winning, he threw his dummy out of the pram and refused to stand after all. He didn\'t even bother telling the branch - he never got back in touch. They re-chose a local firefighter. Then, during Tommy\'s court case, where he managed to convince a couple of jurors that he was telling the truth(!), a letter in [italic]The Herald[/italic] proclaimed Tommy\'s Lordship and cast doubt on the integrity of the SSP\'s honest MSPs. The writer\'s name: Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre. Crowning Tommy an MSP at this man\'s pleasure (how many ordinary Govan folks\' cases will be put on the back burner cos of this case, Mike?) will only make Sheridan\'s fall-from-grace all the more spectacular when he is jailed for his various crimes against justice. I\'m no fan of the business-hugging Greens (though the environment is my number one priority) but Patrick Harvie has been elected. That\'s that! If we\'re gonna start re-counting votes, then count the lot, Scotlandwide. Glasgow is not more important than Scotland. And Mike Dailly/Solidarity members, take note, [bold]Tommy Sheridan is not more important than any other socialist[/bold] . [/quote] any comments on the SSP's result chris? maybe a recount would get your votes up to double figures... Chris wrote:
Mike Dailly is a blatant Sheridanite and a fellow egomaniac. In 2003, Tommy asked the SSP\'s Govan branch if they minded if Govan lawyer Mike stood for election for Govan constituency SSP candidate. The branch agreed and he was chosen over an SWP stooge (back when the SWs and Tommy were rivals). But when Mike found out SSP constituency candidates stood no chance of winning, he threw his dummy out of the pram and refused to stand after all. He didn\'t even bother telling the branch - he never got back in touch. They re-chose a local firefighter. Then, during Tommy\'s court case, where he managed to convince a couple of jurors that he was telling the truth(!), a letter in The Herald proclaimed Tommy\'s Lordship and cast doubt on the integrity of the SSP\'s honest MSPs. The writer\'s name: Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre. Crowning Tommy an MSP at this man\'s pleasure (how many ordinary Govan folks\' cases will be put on the back burner cos of this case, Mike?) will only make Sheridan\'s fall-from-grace all the more spectacular when he is jailed for his various crimes against justice. I\'m no fan of the business-hugging Greens (though the environment is my number one priority) but Patrick Harvie has been elected. That\'s that! If we\'re gonna start re-counting votes, then count the lot, Scotlandwide. Glasgow is not more important than Scotland. And Mike Dailly/Solidarity members, take note, Tommy Sheridan is not more important than any other socialist . any comments on the SSP's result chris? maybe a recount would get your votes up to double figures... Posted by: Mark McGlynn on 4:17pm Mon 7 May 07 When one party wins a national result with 60,000 votes and 100,000 votes are discounted then it cannot stand.
I would have a lot more respect for ALL politicians if they announced an indepedent party would assess all the spoiled papers (contacting votes if necessary) and that everyone's vote would be counted.
Salmond says he want's to govern in Scotlands national interest. What can be more important in a democracy than making sure that every vote is counted? If the SNP continue down the 'sour grapes' line then all they are showing is that they are no different from Labour. They don't care about democracy only power.
Truly a case of 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss.........' When one party wins a national result with 60,000 votes and 100,000 votes are discounted then it cannot stand.
I would have a lot more respect for ALL politicians if they announced an indepedent party would assess all the spoiled papers (contacting votes if necessary) and that everyone's vote would be counted.
Salmond says he want's to govern in Scotlands national interest. What can be more important in a democracy than making sure that every vote is counted? If the SNP continue down the 'sour grapes' line then all they are showing is that they are no different from Labour. They don't care about democracy only power.
Truly a case of 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss.........' Posted by: Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh on 4:22pm Mon 7 May 07 @Brian on 9:38am
no it wouldn't, but it certainly is a strange pairing, a socialist, and a member of Scotland's legal profession who isn't all he seems in his Govan Law Centre's claims of representing & giving everyone their rights & entitlements in law.
Seems Tommy is a favourite of the lawyers .. he gets a full legal team against a newspaper and a jury when no one else could if they didn't have money ... and the lawyers pop up all over the place to support Sheridan's views , some of them who represent 'other' newspapers writing about the case even before the jury decided .. .. what's that all about ? Are these some of his backers coming out at last ? some socialist then .
If he's been done out of votes, then, fine - I'm sure a few have been done out of votes, because there are a few less independents from the main parties now than there were before, and that isn't the best thing for democracy .. but why are the lawyers only shouting for Tommy when they should be shouting for everyone ? @Brian on 9:38am
no it wouldn't, but it certainly is a strange pairing, a socialist, and a member of Scotland's legal profession who isn't all he seems in his Govan Law Centre's claims of representing & giving everyone their rights & entitlements in law.
Seems Tommy is a favourite of the lawyers .. he gets a full legal team against a newspaper and a jury when no one else could if they didn't have money ... and the lawyers pop up all over the place to support Sheridan's views , some of them who represent 'other' newspapers writing about the case even before the jury decided .. .. what's that all about ? Are these some of his backers coming out at last ? some socialist then .
If he's been done out of votes, then, fine - I'm sure a few have been done out of votes, because there are a few less independents from the main parties now than there were before, and that isn't the best thing for democracy .. but why are the lawyers only shouting for Tommy when they should be shouting for everyone ? Posted by: Jimbo on 4:54pm Mon 7 May 07 Michael Strachan wrote.
"Looks like these National 'Socialists' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933..."
Nah, that's all been done by NeoLabour.
Illegal wars, aggressive posturing toward other countries, lying to the populace, amassing WMD, erosion of civil liberties, ID cards, a camera on virtually every lamppost, talking of putting microphones into said cameras, manipulating election results (there's a NeoLabour MP and councillor under investigation in Leeds right now), denying people postal votes, the list goes on and on.
What surprises me more than anything is that we still have people prepared to back them. I think this says more about their backers perception of right and wrong than their ability to be corrupted. Michael Strachan wrote.
"Looks like these National 'Socialists' have managed to gain power only by replicating the same commitment to democracy as another nationalist socialist party from Germany in 1933..."
Nah, that's all been done by NeoLabour.
Illegal wars, aggressive posturing toward other countries, lying to the populace, amassing WMD, erosion of civil liberties, ID cards, a camera on virtually every lamppost, talking of putting microphones into said cameras, manipulating election results (there's a NeoLabour MP and councillor under investigation in Leeds right now), denying people postal votes, the list goes on and on.
What surprises me more than anything is that we still have people prepared to back them. I think this says more about their backers perception of right and wrong than their ability to be corrupted. Posted by: Jimbo on 5:14pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Mark McGlynn[/bold] wrote:
When one party wins a national result with 60,000 votes and 100,000 votes are discounted then it cannot stand. I would have a lot more respect for ALL politicians if they announced an indepedent party would assess all the spoiled papers (contacting votes if necessary) and that everyone's vote would be counted. Salmond says he want's to govern in Scotlands national interest. What can be more important in a democracy than making sure that every vote is counted? If the SNP continue down the 'sour grapes' line then all they are showing is that they are no different from Labour. They don't care about democracy only power. Truly a case of 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss.........'[/quote] There are wasted votes in every election, unfortunately more so in this one. These people were not disenfranchised, they had the same opportunity as everyone else to vote properly. They either did not take the time to do so or did not have the mental furniture to take it in.
I would be more concerned about the thousands who applied for a postal vote and did not receive one or it arrived too late for it to be returned on time. The reason given by the Labour party for this is that they did not expect such a high demand. The Daily Record can run off 100,000 copies of a 32 page issue in one night but the Scotland Office couldn't run off 100,000 voting papers in four weeks. That I don't believe. Mark McGlynn wrote:
When one party wins a national result with 60,000 votes and 100,000 votes are discounted then it cannot stand. I would have a lot more respect for ALL politicians if they announced an indepedent party would assess all the spoiled papers (contacting votes if necessary) and that everyone's vote would be counted. Salmond says he want's to govern in Scotlands national interest. What can be more important in a democracy than making sure that every vote is counted? If the SNP continue down the 'sour grapes' line then all they are showing is that they are no different from Labour. They don't care about democracy only power. Truly a case of 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss.........' There are wasted votes in every election, unfortunately more so in this one. These people were not disenfranchised, they had the same opportunity as everyone else to vote properly. They either did not take the time to do so or did not have the mental furniture to take it in.
I would be more concerned about the thousands who applied for a postal vote and did not receive one or it arrived too late for it to be returned on time. The reason given by the Labour party for this is that they did not expect such a high demand. The Daily Record can run off 100,000 copies of a 32 page issue in one night but the Scotland Office couldn't run off 100,000 voting papers in four weeks. That I don't believe. Posted by: iang, Glasgow on 5:17pm Mon 7 May 07 This should not be given the time of day. Ambulance chasing lawyers looking for a quick buck, no evidence that any party suffered mare or less than any other. If anything all they need to do is ask why a system that was used in the London Mayoral election in 2004 and casued 160,000 ballot papers to be returned was even proposed by Douglas Alexander as appropriate, DRS has Neil Kinnock as a diretor I am told. This should not be given the time of day. Ambulance chasing lawyers looking for a quick buck, no evidence that any party suffered mare or less than any other. If anything all they need to do is ask why a system that was used in the London Mayoral election in 2004 and casued 160,000 ballot papers to be returned was even proposed by Douglas Alexander as appropriate, DRS has Neil Kinnock as a diretor I am told. Posted by: Brian on 5:24pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Peter Cherbi[/bold] wrote:
@Brian on 9:38am no it wouldn't, but it certainly is a strange pairing, a socialist, and a member of Scotland's legal profession who isn't all he seems in his Govan Law Centre's claims of representing & giving everyone their rights & entitlements in law. Seems Tommy is a favourite of the lawyers .. he gets a full legal team against a newspaper and a jury when no one else could if they didn't have money ... and the lawyers pop up all over the place to support Sheridan's views , some of them who represent 'other' newspapers writing about the case even before the jury decided .. .. what's that all about ? Are these some of his backers coming out at last ? some socialist then . If he's been done out of votes, then, fine - I'm sure a few have been done out of votes, because there are a few less independents from the main parties now than there were before, and that isn't the best thing for democracy .. but why are the lawyers only shouting for Tommy when they should be shouting for everyone ? [/quote] Wasn't lenin a lawyer, and Castro? There are many links between lawyers and socialists.
Not sure Tommy got a "full legal team" that others couldn't afford - I thought his team was made up of volunteers who supported him because of his stance. And of course not all lawyers support him - yet to hear any support from "govan" lawyer Gordon Jackson and now Nicola Sturgeon.
Some people might, of course, back a recount and pretend to have Tommy's interests at heart in a bid to reduce the number of SNP MSPs on the Glasgow list though how they could tell the outcome of their action I don't know.
As for Mr Dailly putting some distance between himself and the SSP I think that can only be in his favour. I do know for certain that Govan Law Centre and Mike Dailly do a hell fo a lot of good work for disadvantaged clients. Peter Cherbi wrote:
@Brian on 9:38am no it wouldn't, but it certainly is a strange pairing, a socialist, and a member of Scotland's legal profession who isn't all he seems in his Govan Law Centre's claims of representing & giving everyone their rights & entitlements in law. Seems Tommy is a favourite of the lawyers .. he gets a full legal team against a newspaper and a jury when no one else could if they didn't have money ... and the lawyers pop up all over the place to support Sheridan's views , some of them who represent 'other' newspapers writing about the case even before the jury decided .. .. what's that all about ? Are these some of his backers coming out at last ? some socialist then . If he's been done out of votes, then, fine - I'm sure a few have been done out of votes, because there are a few less independents from the main parties now than there were before, and that isn't the best thing for democracy .. but why are the lawyers only shouting for Tommy when they should be shouting for everyone ? Wasn't lenin a lawyer, and Castro? There are many links between lawyers and socialists.
Not sure Tommy got a "full legal team" that others couldn't afford - I thought his team was made up of volunteers who supported him because of his stance. And of course not all lawyers support him - yet to hear any support from "govan" lawyer Gordon Jackson and now Nicola Sturgeon.
Some people might, of course, back a recount and pretend to have Tommy's interests at heart in a bid to reduce the number of SNP MSPs on the Glasgow list though how they could tell the outcome of their action I don't know.
As for Mr Dailly putting some distance between himself and the SSP I think that can only be in his favour. I do know for certain that Govan Law Centre and Mike Dailly do a hell fo a lot of good work for disadvantaged clients. Posted by: Andrew Will, Earlston Borders on 5:27pm Mon 7 May 07 If the thousands of children sitting exams across Scotland this month misunderstand a question, and fail their exams, will they be able to demand a new exam .Of course not, given that every opinion poll bar 1, suggested the SNP were going to win is a reasonable indicator that despite the confusion and errors the result was pretty much what the people voted for.
Ther labour party and certain tabloid papers need to learn that we do actually live in a democracy and despite their attempts to twist the system they lost.Stop screaming about how unfair it is and listen to the people about the reasons they didn' vote for you this time If the thousands of children sitting exams across Scotland this month misunderstand a question, and fail their exams, will they be able to demand a new exam .Of course not, given that every opinion poll bar 1, suggested the SNP were going to win is a reasonable indicator that despite the confusion and errors the result was pretty much what the people voted for.
Ther labour party and certain tabloid papers need to learn that we do actually live in a democracy and despite their attempts to twist the system they lost.Stop screaming about how unfair it is and listen to the people about the reasons they didn' vote for you this time Posted by: Alan, Glasgow on 5:38pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Brian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]TheWiseOne[/bold] wrote: [bold]Posted by: Brian on 9:54am today 'Human rights are not about the will of the majority - quite the opposite and quite rightly so.'[/bold] I could see the point of a court case if the 9000 people involved had been denied a vote. They were not, therefore I don't see how their human rights were denied. [/quote] I agree you make a strong point. Perhaps the big worry is inconsistency - is it the case that some Returning Officers counted votes where the mark was ambiguous where others would not? For example if on the Holyrood sheets someone put the figure "1" instead of a cross but no other mark is that to be counted? I would say not as you failed to follow the instruction ("put a X") but others I speak to say it should be counted as the intention is clear. Either all ambiguous marks should be rejected or else the election result is down to the whim of one man or woman.[/quote] I agree with TheWiseOne and Brian
We should move on.. and await the enquiry for next time to avoid this mess. We can't go back and decide what people "intended" to vote.
I assume that Returning Officers did not reject ballot papers, but the machine did ..unless they also checked every spoiled paper and decided to over-ride the machine by allowing a 1 as an X (I presume the machine was programmed to look specifically for the X?) Brian wrote:
TheWiseOne wrote: Posted by: Brian on 9:54am today 'Human rights are not about the will of the majority - quite the opposite and quite rightly so.' I could see the point of a court case if the 9000 people involved had been denied a vote. They were not, therefore I don't see how their human rights were denied. I agree you make a strong point. Perhaps the big worry is inconsistency - is it the case that some Returning Officers counted votes where the mark was ambiguous where others would not? For example if on the Holyrood sheets someone put the figure "1" instead of a cross but no other mark is that to be counted? I would say not as you failed to follow the instruction ("put a X") but others I speak to say it should be counted as the intention is clear. Either all ambiguous marks should be rejected or else the election result is down to the whim of one man or woman. I agree with TheWiseOne and Brian
We should move on.. and await the enquiry for next time to avoid this mess. We can't go back and decide what people "intended" to vote.
I assume that Returning Officers did not reject ballot papers, but the machine did ..unless they also checked every spoiled paper and decided to over-ride the machine by allowing a 1 as an X (I presume the machine was programmed to look specifically for the X?) Posted by: Mark McGlynn on 5:43pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Andrew Will[/bold] wrote:
If the thousands of children sitting exams across Scotland this month misunderstand a question, and fail their exams, will they be able to demand a new exam .Of course not, given that every opinion poll bar 1, suggested the SNP were going to win is a reasonable indicator that despite the confusion and errors the result was pretty much what the people voted for. Ther labour party and certain tabloid papers need to learn that we do actually live in a democracy and despite their attempts to twist the system they lost.Stop screaming about how unfair it is and listen to the people about the reasons they didn' vote for you this time[/quote] As a teacher I have to inform you that in the past that has happened (and been kept very huh hush). The SQA then tweaks around the edge's to ensure that the children arn't penalised over a question that was either to difficult or one for which their teachers had failed to properly prepare them.
If you don't believe me ask any secondary teacher you know. We all know it happens but we don't like to talk about it. Andrew Will wrote:
If the thousands of children sitting exams across Scotland this month misunderstand a question, and fail their exams, will they be able to demand a new exam .Of course not, given that every opinion poll bar 1, suggested the SNP were going to win is a reasonable indicator that despite the confusion and errors the result was pretty much what the people voted for. Ther labour party and certain tabloid papers need to learn that we do actually live in a democracy and despite their attempts to twist the system they lost.Stop screaming about how unfair it is and listen to the people about the reasons they didn' vote for you this time As a teacher I have to inform you that in the past that has happened (and been kept very huh hush). The SQA then tweaks around the edge's to ensure that the children arn't penalised over a question that was either to difficult or one for which their teachers had failed to properly prepare them.
If you don't believe me ask any secondary teacher you know. We all know it happens but we don't like to talk about it. Posted by: Brian on 5:46pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Mark McGlynn[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Andrew Will[/bold] wrote: If the thousands of children sitting exams across Scotland this month misunderstand a question, and fail their exams, will they be able to demand a new exam .Of course not, given that every opinion poll bar 1, suggested the SNP were going to win is a reasonable indicator that despite the confusion and errors the result was pretty much what the people voted for. Ther labour party and certain tabloid papers need to learn that we do actually live in a democracy and despite their attempts to twist the system they lost.Stop screaming about how unfair it is and listen to the people about the reasons they didn' vote for you this time[/quote] As a teacher I have to inform you that in the past that has happened (and been kept very huh hush). The SQA then tweaks around the edge's to ensure that the children arn't penalised over a question that was either to difficult or one for which their teachers had failed to properly prepare them. If you don't believe me ask any secondary teacher you know. We all know it happens but we don't like to talk about it.[/quote] Please tell me you teach PE and Religious Studies and not anything serious! Mark McGlynn wrote:
Andrew Will wrote: If the thousands of children sitting exams across Scotland this month misunderstand a question, and fail their exams, will they be able to demand a new exam .Of course not, given that every opinion poll bar 1, suggested the SNP were going to win is a reasonable indicator that despite the confusion and errors the result was pretty much what the people voted for. Ther labour party and certain tabloid papers need to learn that we do actually live in a democracy and despite their attempts to twist the system they lost.Stop screaming about how unfair it is and listen to the people about the reasons they didn' vote for you this time As a teacher I have to inform you that in the past that has happened (and been kept very huh hush). The SQA then tweaks around the edge's to ensure that the children arn't penalised over a question that was either to difficult or one for which their teachers had failed to properly prepare them. If you don't believe me ask any secondary teacher you know. We all know it happens but we don't like to talk about it. Please tell me you teach PE and Religious Studies and not anything serious! Posted by: Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh on 5:49pm Mon 7 May 07 @Brian on 5:24pm today
Lenin & Castro are fine examples of lawyers to follow - one ruined his country, produced a dictator equal to Hitler (Stalin) who killed as many of his own as his enemies did, and the other wont allow anyone on the internet without a government representative sitting next to them, to name but a few of the lack of freedoms in Cuba.
Hope Tommy and his lawyer backers don't foist those ideals on Scotland - or it will be backward at full speed.
I'm sure Tommy got a full legal team others couldn't afford - or even get access to. Name a few others who can do what he did against a newspaper, with access to solicitors & Advocates who hold themselves as the 'leading lights' of the legal establishment in Scotland.
... even the 'sacking' of the lawyers was a staged tactic .. and all those glowing articles the next day neatly arranged in another newspaper praising the legal team for what they did against the criticisms of the judge and to stem any complaints against their conduct (incidently reported by this very newspaper not so long ago).so on the basis of that, I'd say Tommy has quite a bit of support from certainly some elements of the legal profession who are influential enough to cause a newspaper or two some grief ... and here we go again, another of them pops up in the form of Mr Dailly, one time possible candidate for Sheridan's former party which Chris rightly pointed out.
Oh .. about the Govan Law Centre .. yes I know it helps people, but I also know people whom they leave in the lurch when it comes to legal problems - particularly when it comes to those who have fallen victim to a crooked lawyer and have no further opportunity to get legal representation because the Law Society have blacklisted them ... @Brian on 5:24pm today
Lenin & Castro are fine examples of lawyers to follow - one ruined his country, produced a dictator equal to Hitler (Stalin) who killed as many of his own as his enemies did, and the other wont allow anyone on the internet without a government representative sitting next to them, to name but a few of the lack of freedoms in Cuba.
Hope Tommy and his lawyer backers don't foist those ideals on Scotland - or it will be backward at full speed.
I'm sure Tommy got a full legal team others couldn't afford - or even get access to. Name a few others who can do what he did against a newspaper, with access to solicitors & Advocates who hold themselves as the 'leading lights' of the legal establishment in Scotland.
... even the 'sacking' of the lawyers was a staged tactic .. and all those glowing articles the next day neatly arranged in another newspaper praising the legal team for what they did against the criticisms of the judge and to stem any complaints against their conduct (incidently reported by this very newspaper not so long ago).so on the basis of that, I'd say Tommy has quite a bit of support from certainly some elements of the legal profession who are influential enough to cause a newspaper or two some grief ... and here we go again, another of them pops up in the form of Mr Dailly, one time possible candidate for Sheridan's former party which Chris rightly pointed out.
Oh .. about the Govan Law Centre .. yes I know it helps people, but I also know people whom they leave in the lurch when it comes to legal problems - particularly when it comes to those who have fallen victim to a crooked lawyer and have no further opportunity to get legal representation because the Law Society have blacklisted them ... Posted by: Vera Smart on 5:51pm Mon 7 May 07 [quote][bold]Brian Blessed wrote[/bold] :
I came across a guy on polling day who tried to vote at the polling station, only to be told he had already applied for a postal vote. This was news to him and his wife, who had done no such thing.[/quote]
A friend of mine works for the council and was on duty at a polling station and witnessed the same thing: people turning-up expecting to vote, only to be told that they were down for a postal vote. It was then suggested that they contact the council.
There does seem to be something horribly fishy going on.
Brian Blessed wrote :
I came across a guy on polling day who tried to vote at the polling station, only to be told he had already applied for a postal vote. This was news to him and his wife, who had done no such thing.
A friend of mine works for the council and was on duty at a polling station and witnessed the same thing: people turning-up expecting to vote, only to be told that they were down for a postal vote. It was then suggested that they contact the council.
There does seem to be something horribly fishy going on.
Posted by: Russell Ramsay, Irvine on 5:52pm Mon 7 May 07 [italic]If Alan Wilson wants a manual recount he'd better hurry up. Today is paper recycling day in Cunninghame[/italic] . If Alan Wilson wants a manual recount he'd better hurry up. Today is paper recycling day in Cunninghame . Posted by: JAM804, Ayrshire on 5:56pm Mon 7 May 07 Contact those who spoiled their vote to ascertain their intention? So much for the secret ballot - maybe we could all vote by [bold]identity card[/bold] in the future to wipe out any last trace of democratic right. What about those who voted "correctly" but put their cross in the wrong box - how do we identify these people?
This is nothing more than a ruse to create a myth of how poor Tommy was done down - Act 1 of the 2011 Election campaign! Contact those who spoiled their vote to ascertain their intention? So much for the secret ballot - maybe we could all vote by identity card in the future to wipe out any last trace of democratic right. What about those who voted "correctly" but put their cross in the wrong box - how do we identify these people?
This is nothing more than a ruse to create a myth of how poor Tommy was done down - Act 1 of the 2011 Election campaign! Posted by: Vera Smart on 5:56pm Mon 7 May 07 I should have added that those voters I mention above, were turned away without being allowed to vote. I should have added that those voters I mention above, were turned away without being allowed to vote. Posted by: Brian on 5:58pm Mon 7 May 07 There are certainly problems suing solicitors in Scotland - sometimes people have good cause to complain and are left without redress but also there are cases where, for a variety of reasons, the person has fallen out with a whole series of perfectly adequate solicitors and is frankly bejond help - I am not sure it is fair to expect Law Centres to pick up these cases.
Quoad Ultra denied , as I believe the lawyers say! There are certainly problems suing solicitors in Scotland - sometimes people have good cause to complain and are left without redress but also there are cases where, for a variety of reasons, the person has fallen out with a whole series of perfectly adequate solicitors and is frankly bejond help - I am not sure it is fair to expect Law Centres to pick up these cases.
Quoad Ultra denied , as I believe the lawyers say! Posted by: Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh on 6:38pm Mon 7 May 07 It probably isn't fair to expext Law Centres to pick up the cases where people can;t get a lawyer to sue a lawyer (personally, I've never used a Law Centre myself), but when some at the Law Centre take on some individuals, then when they find out it involves a crooked lawyer and drop the client on instructions from high ... it doesn't seem to be inline with their claims of representing the human rights of people across the board .. which goes back to challenge the protestations of Mike Dailly & his Govan Law Centre, which also gets the occasional glowing article planted in 'other' newspapers by freelancers paid for by the legal profession.
The Govan Law Centre also occasionally seem to drop clients who have become a target of some of those famed Glasgow Landlords/Housing Associations who try & evict people for various motives too .. oh .. a housing issue .. something Tommy should take an interest in, given his claims, but maybe not if it involves poor members of the public left at the mercy of housing thugs, by Mr Dailly & Co.
Lawyers and politicians are some mix when it comes to claiming to represent the rights of the individual ...and when it comes to their own interests, its always them before the public/electorate/client .. so Tommy and his lawyer friends and their motives certainly do make for some interesting scrutiny ... It probably isn't fair to expext Law Centres to pick up the cases where people can;t get a lawyer to sue a lawyer (personally, I've never used a Law Centre myself), but when some at the Law Centre take on some individuals, then when they find out it involves a crooked lawyer and drop the client on instructions from high ... it doesn't seem to be inline with their claims of representing the human rights of people across the board .. which goes back to challenge the protestations of Mike Dailly & his Govan Law Centre, which also gets the occasional glowing article planted in 'other' newspapers by freelancers paid for by the legal profession.
The Govan Law Centre also occasionally seem to drop clients who have become a target of some of those famed Glasgow Landlords/Housing Associations who try & evict people for various motives too .. oh .. a housing issue .. something Tommy should take an interest in, given his claims, but maybe not if it involves poor members of the public left at the mercy of housing thugs, by Mr Dailly & Co.
Lawyers and politicians are some mix when it comes to claiming to represent the rights of the individual ...and when it comes to their own interests, its always them before the public/electorate/client .. so Tommy and his lawyer friends and their motives certainly do make for some interesting scrutiny ... Posted by: Brian on 6:43pm Mon 7 May 07 I am not sure what you write is at all fair but we are way off topic so I'll leave it. I am not sure what you write is at all fair but we are way off topic so I'll leave it. Posted by: Iain on 7:54pm Mon 7 May 07 Lawyers may be contacting people in Glasgow to find out how they really intended to vote in the list on their "spoilt" ballot papers which they spoilt by accident. Should this be allowed?
If I had voted Labour by accident (which I didn't btw) even though I didn't spoil my ballot paper would I get to have that amended?
Also who is to say these people won't have changed their minds since the election? If they get to change their minds then surely the whole nation should get that opportunity as well?
Lawyers may be contacting people in Glasgow to find out how they really intended to vote in the list on their "spoilt" ballot papers which they spoilt by accident. Should this be allowed?
If I had voted Labour by accident (which I didn't btw) even though I didn't spoil my ballot paper would I get to have that amended?
Also who is to say these people won't have changed their minds since the election? If they get to change their minds then surely the whole nation should get that opportunity as well?
Posted by: Dunedin on 8:58pm Mon 7 May 07 Hmmm this is all getting very interesting. Let us take for example a political party which in good faith and according to all the rules has just spent millions on this election campaign.
They are then told that the result is invalid and that they have to go through the whole process again.
They should of course sue whoever was responsible for the electoral shambles for any extra costs which they
incurred as a result of this incompetence.
Remind me again who was responsible for the running of this election? Hmmm this is all getting very interesting. Let us take for example a political party which in good faith and according to all the rules has just spent millions on this election campaign.
They are then told that the result is invalid and that they have to go through the whole process again.
They should of course sue whoever was responsible for the electoral shambles for any extra costs which they
incurred as a result of this incompetence.
Remind me again who was responsible for the running of this election? Posted by: Peter, Edinburgh on 9:17pm Mon 7 May 07 The only way that a count of the spoiled ballots could help Labour is if, somehow, their voters are more stupid than the rest of the electorate and made more mistakes....oh wait, yeah the Labour Party might have a point there! :-) If this seat & list are to be re-counted then we need to re-count ALL of the votes across Scotland given that 5 SNP & 5 Labour victors won by a smaller margin than the number of spoiled ballots - can't have some re-counted & others not. Also the postal ballots have to be re-done too since some missed out - wouldn't it just be quicker & cheaper to re-run the election (informing the electorate that it is London Labour's fault they have to vote again)? The only way that a count of the spoiled ballots could help Labour is if, somehow, their voters are more stupid than the rest of the electorate and made more mistakes....oh wait, yeah the Labour Party might have a point there! :-) If this seat & list are to be re-counted then we need to re-count ALL of the votes across Scotland given that 5 SNP & 5 Labour victors won by a smaller margin than the number of spoiled ballots - can't have some re-counted & others not. Also the postal ballots have to be re-done too since some missed out - wouldn't it just be quicker & cheaper to re-run the election (informing the electorate that it is London Labour's fault they have to vote again)? Posted by: Diomedes Kane, Glasgow on 12:29am Tue 8 May 07 I find the arrogance and complacency of the Labour party stunning, even after having witnessing them plumb new depths in cynical negative smear campaigning before the election. Now that they have lost - despite having the media and the apparatus of the British state deployed, sometimes illegally, in their favour - they are complaining about a ballot which was organised by a Labour run Scotland Office on behalf of a Labour run executive and Labour run council and implemented by a company on whose board sits a former leader of the Labour party.
If they have any complaints about irregularities, surely the problem is not that the election was rigged, but that they failed to rig it enough! I find the arrogance and complacency of the Labour party stunning, even after having witnessing them plumb new depths in cynical negative smear campaigning before the election. Now that they have lost - despite having the media and the apparatus of the British state deployed, sometimes illegally, in their favour - they are complaining about a ballot which was organised by a Labour run Scotland Office on behalf of a Labour run executive and Labour run council and implemented by a company on whose board sits a former leader of the Labour party.
If they have any complaints about irregularities, surely the problem is not that the election was rigged, but that they failed to rig it enough! Posted by: Alan Smrt, www.youscotland.com on 5:57am Tue 8 May 07 [bold]http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ScottishVoteScandal2007/[/bold]
Please sign this e-petition on the [bold][italic]Scottish Vote Scandal[/italic][/bold] , and help network it to others. Coalition talks are important,. but the right to vote fundamental http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ScottishVoteScandal2007/
Please sign this e-petition on the Scottish Vote Scandal , and help network it to others. Coalition talks are important,. but the right to vote fundamental Posted by: Jimmy the Pie, North Sea on 7:06am Tue 8 May 07 I thought the election process was 'secret'?? I voted by postal ballot so was my vote not secret??
Charlatan, rogues, whores and comic singers and thats before I start on the Libdums!!!!
Vote SNP in the rerun I thought the election process was 'secret'?? I voted by postal ballot so was my vote not secret??
Charlatan, rogues, whores and comic singers and thats before I start on the Libdums!!!!
Vote SNP in the rerun Posted by: Miss Priss, Glasgow on 10:56am Tue 8 May 07 Let's remember the 550,000 spoiled ballots in the London mayoral and assembly elections in 2004. That puts what happened in Scotland in the shade somewhat! The sad thing is that the London based Scottish Office did not learn the lessons of the London election. The more complex the ballot the more confusion there will be.
However I think there would be very little support for re-running the Glasgow vote. Tommy Sheridan did not lose out because of the electoral system. He lost out because people are fed up with him. Let's remember the 550,000 spoiled ballots in the London mayoral and assembly elections in 2004. That puts what happened in Scotland in the shade somewhat! The sad thing is that the London based Scottish Office did not learn the lessons of the London election. The more complex the ballot the more confusion there will be.
However I think there would be very little support for re-running the Glasgow vote. Tommy Sheridan did not lose out because of the electoral system. He lost out because people are fed up with him. Posted by: Robert McClair, BEMUSED on 11:17am Tue 8 May 07 [quote][bold]Lynne[/bold] wrote:
It is looking increasingly likely that we are in for a period of minority government by the SNP and as a result, instability, because the other parties will have a field day running rings round their legislative programme. How is that going to convince people that the SNP could run an independent Scotland? Salmond should have offered the Lib Dems a deal that didn't even smell of an independence referendum, then at the next election in four years we could have all decided how well the SNP can govern. The people (whatever else they did vote for) certainly did not vote for independence). Re-running the election now might mean an increased vote for the SNP, but maybe not. If the SNP are so sure that the people have spoken then they should not be afraid of allowing those whose votes were discounted to actually have a say in the running of the country. It might mean that some of the smaller parties that many people tried to vote for will gain a voice in the Scottish Parliament - maybe even Tommy Sheridan. And it's all very well to blame the Labour Party for the shambles, but that doesn't do anything about putting it right. [/quote] LYNNE
Well...at least you have moderated your tone, and for that at least we are all grateful!!
Like it or no, the undoubted fact is that the SNP ran on a ticket that said "referendum by 2010". In that event, they are in the impossible position, in order to keep faith with those who voted for them, of being forced to drop this pledge in return for LibDem support..which by itself would still not give them the 65 necessary votes. Whatever else, the LibDems aren't that daft. They..or more correctly "Ming, The Destroyer"..and Gordie B. have "decided" over a wee cuppa that this is how it'll be, and doubtless, once he'd washed out the cups, duly told Nicol"Vidkun" Stephen what he'd to go back and do !!
Now, ...by contrast,.... if the LibDems agree to a Constitutional Convention approach (which they supported in the past to get us devolution) then the stable position of the governing of Scotland could be resumed, without rancour from any side.
As for any possible re-run of the May '07 election, surely that makes for an OVERWHELMING case for a FULL Judicial Enquiry in order to resolve the problem, solution, and the best way forward...but I find it "interesting" to say the least that both Douglas Alexander (who it is hard to imagine is without culpability in this fiasco) and (surprise, surprise ...the Electoral Commision.. are opposed to this route). Do I smell fear from these quarters?..You bet I do !!
If you are right..and you may well be...that the smaller parties would be restored to a degree by a recount of the voting, ...I, for one would have no problem with that, ....although the biggest danger all....and the REAL reason we have the smokescreen surrounding the possible re-run ...is that those members of the public who voted LibDem last week (and cannot be other than apalled at the actions of "Vidkun" Stephen and Co.) might just remove their LibDem votes to a more appropriate column altogether !!..........but let's get the Full Judicial Enquiry started NOW !!! Lynne wrote:
It is looking increasingly likely that we are in for a period of minority government by the SNP and as a result, instability, because the other parties will have a field day running rings round their legislative programme. How is that going to convince people that the SNP could run an independent Scotland? Salmond should have offered the Lib Dems a deal that didn't even smell of an independence referendum, then at the next election in four years we could have all decided how well the SNP can govern. The people (whatever else they did vote for) certainly did not vote for independence). Re-running the election now might mean an increased vote for the SNP, but maybe not. If the SNP are so sure that the people have spoken then they should not be afraid of allowing those whose votes were discounted to actually have a say in the running of the country. It might mean that some of the smaller parties that many people tried to vote for will gain a voice in the Scottish Parliament - maybe even Tommy Sheridan. And it's all very well to blame the Labour Party for the shambles, but that doesn't do anything about putting it right. LYNNE
Well...at least you have moderated your tone, and for that at least we are all grateful!!
Like it or no, the undoubted fact is that the SNP ran on a ticket that said "referendum by 2010". In that event, they are in the impossible position, in order to keep faith with those who voted for them, of being forced to drop this pledge in return for LibDem support..which by itself would still not give them the 65 necessary votes. Whatever else, the LibDems aren't that daft. They..or more correctly "Ming, The Destroyer"..and Gordie B. have "decided" over a wee cuppa that this is how it'll be, and doubtless, once he'd washed out the cups, duly told Nicol"Vidkun" Stephen what he'd to go back and do !!
Now, ...by contrast,.... if the LibDems agree to a Constitutional Convention approach (which they supported in the past to get us devolution) then the stable position of the governing of Scotland could be resumed, without rancour from any side.
As for any possible re-run of the May '07 election, surely that makes for an OVERWHELMING case for a FULL Judicial Enquiry in order to resolve the problem, solution, and the best way forward...but I find it "interesting" to say the least that both Douglas Alexander (who it is hard to imagine is without culpability in this fiasco) and (surprise, surprise ...the Electoral Commision.. are opposed to this route). Do I smell fear from these quarters?..You bet I do !!
If you are right..and you may well be...that the smaller parties would be restored to a degree by a recount of the voting, ...I, for one would have no problem with that, ....although the biggest danger all....and the REAL reason we have the smokescreen surrounding the possible re-run ...is that those members of the public who voted LibDem last week (and cannot be other than apalled at the actions of "Vidkun" Stephen and Co.) might just remove their LibDem votes to a more appropriate column altogether !!..........but let's get the Full Judicial Enquiry started NOW !!! Posted by: Miss Priss, Glasgow on 11:24am Tue 8 May 07 I am sorry Lynn but 100,000 people did not have their votes discounted.
100,000 people did not follow the instructions they were given and failed to vote properly.
If I buy a flat pack wardrobe and fail to assemble it properly because I can't understand the instructions I would be entitled to complain that the instructions were not sufficiently clear. But would I be entitled to a new wardrobe? I don't think so.
I am sorry Lynn but 100,000 people did not have their votes discounted.
100,000 people did not follow the instructions they were given and failed to vote properly.
If I buy a flat pack wardrobe and fail to assemble it properly because I can't understand the instructions I would be entitled to complain that the instructions were not sufficiently clear. But would I be entitled to a new wardrobe? I don't think so.
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 11:27am Tue 8 May 07 It is apparent that if a party were only on the regional column and not the constinuency column, any supporter of that party would invariably vote twice in the regional, result spoilt paper. This was clearly understood by Douglas Alexander and the Labour party which was using this as a way of voter manipulation
If this is proven to be true, I would like to see criminal proceeeding s against Douglas Alexander and all those in the Labour party involved!
It is apparent that if a party were only on the regional column and not the constinuency column, any supporter of that party would invariably vote twice in the regional, result spoilt paper. This was clearly understood by Douglas Alexander and the Labour party which was using this as a way of voter manipulation
If this is proven to be true, I would like to see criminal proceeeding s against Douglas Alexander and all those in the Labour party involved!
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 11:32am Tue 8 May 07 Miss Priss of Glasgow
Im sure you will agree that the instructions over the top of the ballot paper for Regional and constituency vote was misleading. When it stated that ' you have two votes' it DID NOT clarify that it was one per column!
Furthermore, in some constituencies, a party would not field a constituency candidate, but would only be on the regional list
So in most , if not all cases, voters presumed that if they didnt see a candidate of there choice on the constinuency , they could place 2 votes on the regional list
Miss Priss of Glasgow
Im sure you will agree that the instructions over the top of the ballot paper for Regional and constituency vote was misleading. When it stated that ' you have two votes' it DID NOT clarify that it was one per column!
Furthermore, in some constituencies, a party would not field a constituency candidate, but would only be on the regional list
So in most , if not all cases, voters presumed that if they didnt see a candidate of there choice on the constinuency , they could place 2 votes on the regional list
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 11:33am Tue 8 May 07 I would be interested to know if the SNP had 129 constinuency candidates standing?
If it is the case that they did not, then it is clear that Labour have tried to manipulate the voting, there is no doubt about it.
Why I ask about SNP, is that SNP were seen as the main opposition to Labour, but if Labour knew that SNP were not fielding a full team on constiniency, similar to those of the Greens, SSP, Solidarity etc
Then its is obviious that Labour have been inviolved invoter manipulation.
The fact that parties such as the greens, didnt filed any constinuency candidates, resulted in there apparent poor performance
I would be interested to know if the SNP had 129 constinuency candidates standing?
If it is the case that they did not, then it is clear that Labour have tried to manipulate the voting, there is no doubt about it.
Why I ask about SNP, is that SNP were seen as the main opposition to Labour, but if Labour knew that SNP were not fielding a full team on constiniency, similar to those of the Greens, SSP, Solidarity etc
Then its is obviious that Labour have been inviolved invoter manipulation.
The fact that parties such as the greens, didnt filed any constinuency candidates, resulted in there apparent poor performance
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 11:35am Tue 8 May 07 For what is now becoming apparent, I wold like the lawyers to look at taking out criminal proceedings against Douglas Alexander and all those in the Labour party involved in the voter manipulation scandal
Douglas Alexander knew full well a year ago what would happen For what is now becoming apparent, I wold like the lawyers to look at taking out criminal proceedings against Douglas Alexander and all those in the Labour party involved in the voter manipulation scandal
Douglas Alexander knew full well a year ago what would happen Posted by: Gordon_J, Glasgow on 12:33pm Tue 8 May 07 [quote][bold]Edward[/bold] wrote:
It is apparent that if a party were only on the regional column and not the constinuency column, any supporter of that party would invariably vote twice in the regional, result spoilt paper. This was clearly understood by Douglas Alexander and the Labour party which was using this as a way of voter manipulation If this is proven to be true, I would like to see criminal proceeeding s against Douglas Alexander and all those in the Labour party involved! [/quote] Surely a supporter of a party in your scenario would only vote for their party in the list and no one in the constituency? Why would they vote twice, once for their own party and once for a rival?
This is clearly **** up rather than conspiracy. Many people predicted difficulties with three votes on the one day but to say that anyone could predict who wwould be the biggest loser is crazy. Edward wrote:
It is apparent that if a party were only on the regional column and not the constinuency column, any supporter of that party would invariably vote twice in the regional, result spoilt paper. This was clearly understood by Douglas Alexander and the Labour party which was using this as a way of voter manipulation If this is proven to be true, I would like to see criminal proceeeding s against Douglas Alexander and all those in the Labour party involved! Surely a supporter of a party in your scenario would only vote for their party in the list and no one in the constituency? Why would they vote twice, once for their own party and once for a rival?
This is clearly **** up rather than conspiracy. Many people predicted difficulties with three votes on the one day but to say that anyone could predict who wwould be the biggest loser is crazy. Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 2:03pm Tue 8 May 07 [quote][bold]Gordon_J[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Edward[/bold] wrote: It is apparent that if a party were only on the regional column and not the constinuency column, any supporter of that party would invariably vote twice in the regional, result spoilt paper. This was clearly understood by Douglas Alexander and the Labour party which was using this as a way of voter manipulation If this is proven to be true, I would like to see criminal proceeeding s against Douglas Alexander and all those in the Labour party involved! [/quote] Surely a supporter of a party in your scenario would only vote for their party in the list and no one in the constituency? Why would they vote twice, once for their own party and once for a rival? This is clearly **** up rather than conspiracy. Many people predicted difficulties with three votes on the one day but to say that anyone could predict who wwould be the biggest loser is crazy.[/quote] I agree a voter, who wants to vote for the party of their choice, which was only on the RH column, would or should only put one X
But you have to remember that the wording at the top of the ballot paper stated that 'you have two votes' and didnt actually clarify that it was one per column. Now if the ballot had only been for the parliamentary election that may have been straightforward, but the voter on this occasion was also being asked to also vote on the council elections on the STV system, which is 1,2,3 etc.
With the lack of clear instruction on the parliamentary ballot paper, it was more than likely assumed that if you didnt like any candidiates on the LH column, you could use both votes on the LH column. It was again vague that on the list vote was based on a percentage of single votes, not if you wanted to vote eiether twice for the same party or a vote for two parties that you prefered.
Yes it may be that it is a **** up, instead of a conspiracy, but a conspiracy should also not be ruled out. The track record of the Labour party isnt exactly whiter than white when it comes to telling the truth! Gordon_J wrote:
Edward wrote: It is apparent that if a party were only on the regional column and not the constinuency column, any supporter of that party would invariably vote twice in the regional, result spoilt paper. This was clearly understood by Douglas Alexander and the Labour party which was using this as a way of voter manipulation If this is proven to be true, I would like to see criminal proceeeding s against Douglas Alexander and all those in the Labour party involved! Surely a supporter of a party in your scenario would only vote for their party in the list and no one in the constituency? Why would they vote twice, once for their own party and once for a rival? This is clearly **** up rather than conspiracy. Many people predicted difficulties with three votes on the one day but to say that anyone could predict who wwould be the biggest loser is crazy. I agree a voter, who wants to vote for the party of their choice, which was only on the RH column, would or should only put one X
But you have to remember that the wording at the top of the ballot paper stated that 'you have two votes' and didnt actually clarify that it was one per column. Now if the ballot had only been for the parliamentary election that may have been straightforward, but the voter on this occasion was also being asked to also vote on the council elections on the STV system, which is 1,2,3 etc.
With the lack of clear instruction on the parliamentary ballot paper, it was more than likely assumed that if you didnt like any candidiates on the LH column, you could use both votes on the LH column. It was again vague that on the list vote was based on a percentage of single votes, not if you wanted to vote eiether twice for the same party or a vote for two parties that you prefered.
Yes it may be that it is a **** up, instead of a conspiracy, but a conspiracy should also not be ruled out. The track record of the Labour party isnt exactly whiter than white when it comes to telling the truth! Posted by: Greig on 3:01pm Tue 8 May 07 Below is an exerpt from a release by the Scotland office dated May 4th 2007 obtained under the freedom of information act
"STATEMENT ON SCOTTISH ELECTIONS
A Scotland Office spokesman said:
“E-counting has worked well in a number of areas and voters can be reassured that where counts have been completed the results are accurate and final."
Allan please take special note of the last six words quoted, by your own colleagues responsible for the election.
And please if you are going to fight another unwinnable contest, use your own money to do it, the constituency now needs all they can.
The night of the count you lost by 17 votes and then 48 on the re-count, I fear your humiliation will be twofold if by the slightest chance the electoral commission were to entertain this bitter request.
Some times my friend it is better to go quietly into the night with dignity intact, than to be dragged kicking and screaming to the employment ranks, surely a chap of your expetise would not find it difficult to be fostered in the private sector.
My wishes are with you for the future, but that future Allan is out side of Scottish politics now. Below is an exerpt from a release by the Scotland office dated May 4th 2007 obtained under the freedom of information act
"STATEMENT ON SCOTTISH ELECTIONS
A Scotland Office spokesman said:
“E-counting has worked well in a number of areas and voters can be reassured that where counts have been completed the results are accurate and final."
Allan please take special note of the last six words quoted, by your own colleagues responsible for the election.
And please if you are going to fight another unwinnable contest, use your own money to do it, the constituency now needs all they can.
The night of the count you lost by 17 votes and then 48 on the re-count, I fear your humiliation will be twofold if by the slightest chance the electoral commission were to entertain this bitter request.
Some times my friend it is better to go quietly into the night with dignity intact, than to be dragged kicking and screaming to the employment ranks, surely a chap of your expetise would not find it difficult to be fostered in the private sector.
My wishes are with you for the future, but that future Allan is out side of Scottish politics now. Posted by: Don, Arran on 8:14pm Tue 8 May 07 Can we have another election in Cunninghame North, please? I think it would be really fun. Can we have another election in Cunninghame North, please? I think it would be really fun. Posted by: George Laird, Glasgow on 5:52pm Wed 9 May 07 [quote][bold]David[/bold] wrote:
[bold]Just a wee note to Lynne would posted 2nd above...[/bold] For your information, the [bold]Cunningham North result has ALREADY UNDERGONE A RECOUNT[/bold] ...this happened on the night when the LOOSER Allan Wilson demanded it...he's already had his legal righ to a recount...and the recount revealled for a second time that [bold]HE LOST!![/bold] Labour are quite simply sore losers...it's as simple as that...[/quote] Dear David
I liked your post, this part in particular;
"the LOOSER Allan Wilson demanded it...he's already had his legal righ to a recount...and the recount revealled for a second time that HE LOST!! "
Don't you just love a heroic voting public.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
David wrote:
Just a wee note to Lynne would posted 2nd above... For your information, the Cunningham North result has ALREADY UNDERGONE A RECOUNT ...this happened on the night when the LOOSER Allan Wilson demanded it...he's already had his legal righ to a recount...and the recount revealled for a second time that HE LOST!! Labour are quite simply sore losers...it's as simple as that... Dear David
I liked your post, this part in particular;
"the LOOSER Allan Wilson demanded it...he's already had his legal righ to a recount...and the recount revealled for a second time that HE LOST!! "
Don't you just love a heroic voting public.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Posted by: George Laird, Glasgow on 6:11pm Wed 9 May 07 [quote][bold]Greig[/bold] wrote:
How stupid are unionists, they want to mount alegal challenge based on this "Mr Dailly said he planned to raise his legal challenge under Article 3 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees that citizens should have the conditions in which to express freely their views in an election." And they want to deny Scotland a referendum. Go for it you will soon realise that one sword has two edges[/quote] I cannot believe that Mike Dailly thinks he has a case under article three of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Everyone who attended a polling station was given those rights the minute they set foot in the building. All conditions of article three were met.
It is people like Dailly that make it hard for genuine people to get civil legal aid from the legal aid board. This is a bogus claim that anyone with an IQ above 10 who read the HRA would steer clear of.
So what is Dailly's agenda?
It is certain nothing to do with justice or democracy more like self promotion.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University Greig wrote:
How stupid are unionists, they want to mount alegal challenge based on this "Mr Dailly said he planned to raise his legal challenge under Article 3 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees that citizens should have the conditions in which to express freely their views in an election." And they want to deny Scotland a referendum. Go for it you will soon realise that one sword has two edges I cannot believe that Mike Dailly thinks he has a case under article three of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Everyone who attended a polling station was given those rights the minute they set foot in the building. All conditions of article three were met.
It is people like Dailly that make it hard for genuine people to get civil legal aid from the legal aid board. This is a bogus claim that anyone with an IQ above 10 who read the HRA would steer clear of.
So what is Dailly's agenda?
It is certain nothing to do with justice or democracy more like self promotion.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University Posted by: Don, Arran on 7:26pm Fri 11 May 07 The "Arran Voice" (12.5.07) reports " Inquiries by the candidates on the night of the count also found that the number of ballot papers delivered from arran was exactly one hundred more than the number registered as having left the island. The returning officer presumed it was an arithmetical error and all the ballots received were counted."
A presumption which allows for all sorts of conspiracy theories, specially since the votes had been floating around the Firth of Clyde in two boats, neither of which are locally believed to be licensed to operate in the Clyde during darkness.
The returning officer, in a letter to the Arran Voice addresses the question of "lost Arran votes". He does not mention extra Arran votes. The "Arran Voice" (12.5.07) reports " Inquiries by the candidates on the night of the count also found that the number of ballot papers delivered from arran was exactly one hundred more than the number registered as having left the island. The returning officer presumed it was an arithmetical error and all the ballots received were counted."
A presumption which allows for all sorts of conspiracy theories, specially since the votes had been floating around the Firth of Clyde in two boats, neither of which are locally believed to be licensed to operate in the Clyde during darkness.
The returning officer, in a letter to the Arran Voice addresses the question of "lost Arran votes". He does not mention extra Arran votes. Posted by: Kay Sieverding, United States on 4:06pm Sat 30 Jun 07 I am an U.S. citizen living in the U.S. I have no criminal record. I was not accused of filing anything fraudulent in any court. I did not disrupt any court hearing. None the less, I was jailed on three ocassions totalling 5 months in the U.S. without even being accused of a crime. The reason for this is that I sued a lawyer. On 6/1/07, the same insurance defense lawyers and the same judge, Colorado federal judge Edward Nottingham, indicated their intention to send men with guns after me once again. I don't know how to get them to cease and desist these threats. There are all sorts of laws in the U.S. that say, for instance, that a U.S. citizen cannot be held by the U.S. government unless an Act of Congress is cited and that a citizen may not be extradited unless both the governor or chief magistrate and an assistant U.S. attorney sign an extradition form and there is a finding of a felony, treason or an Act punishable by death, but they just keep doing it anyway. I am an U.S. citizen living in the U.S. I have no criminal record. I was not accused of filing anything fraudulent in any court. I did not disrupt any court hearing. None the less, I was jailed on three ocassions totalling 5 months in the U.S. without even being accused of a crime. The reason for this is that I sued a lawyer. On 6/1/07, the same insurance defense lawyers and the same judge, Colorado federal judge Edward Nottingham, indicated their intention to send men with guns after me once again. I don't know how to get them to cease and desist these threats. There are all sorts of laws in the U.S. that say, for instance, that a U.S. citizen cannot be held by the U.S. government unless an Act of Congress is cited and that a citizen may not be extradited unless both the governor or chief magistrate and an assistant U.S. attorney sign an extradition form and there is a finding of a felony, treason or an Act punishable by death, but they just keep doing it anyway. Posted by: Kay Sieverding on 3:55pm Mon 6 Aug 07 My defense counsel billed for 25 secret ex parte conferences with a U.S. federal magistrate judge (O.E. Schlatter) and other federal judicial employees. What do your readers think I should do? The defense counsel, David Brougham, Anthony Lettunich, Christopher Beall, Traci Van Pelt etc. don't deny that they had the secret ex parte conferences. My defense counsel billed for 25 secret ex parte conferences with a U.S. federal magistrate judge (O.E. Schlatter) and other federal judicial employees. What do your readers think I should do? The defense counsel, David Brougham, Anthony Lettunich, Christopher Beall, Traci Van Pelt etc. don't deny that they had the secret ex parte conferences. Posted by: Bill on 10:32pm Wed 15 Aug 07 Regarding the last two posts, since you asked what readers think you should do: I think you should stop posting your irrelevant situation all over the internet in places where they don't belong. What on earth do your legal problems have to do with a story about lost votes? Regarding the last two posts, since you asked what readers think you should do: I think you should stop posting your irrelevant situation all over the internet in places where they don't belong. What on earth do your legal problems have to do with a story about lost votes? | 
