Translate

Monday, 27 April 2015

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE judgment against Lutfur Rahman an establishment stitch-up




http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/lutfur-rahmans-grounds-for-appeal.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/in-defence-of-lutfur-rahman.html

"Lutfur Rahman is only banned from participating in the Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election, I believe." - According to the press, he might also be disqualified from practising as a solicitor, his pre-politics profession.

How do you know he was tried in the Civil Division?

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/an-alternative-lutfur-rahman-election-petition-1

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/electoral-fraud/electoral-fraud-responsibilities#police

The police and prosecutors

The police are responsible for investigating any allegations of electoral fraud. Every police force in the UK has an identified Single Point of Contact Officer (or SPOC) for electoral fraud, who provides specialist support and advice to investigators.

Prosecuting authorities (the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, the Crown Office in Scotland, and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland) are responsible for taking cases of alleged electoral fraud to court. They work closely with police forces to examine evidence about alleged electoral fraud before deciding whether or not to bring a prosecution.

None of this happened while the conditions for setting aside an election are stated below:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/150499/Challenging-elections-in-the-UK.pdf

12. The legislation provides that the outcome of an election may be challenged on
the grounds of an undue election, an undue return, that the candidate was at the
time of election disqualified or that the election was voided by corrupt or illegal
practices.

13. In summary, taking into account Part 3 of the RPA 1983 and relevant case law, the grounds for challenging an election are that:

• an error was made by an electoral official that affected the result or at least
meant that ‘the election was not conducted so as to be substantially in
accordance’ with the rules (under this ground, the election court is able to
conduct a scrutiny of ballot papers to ascertain which candidate has the majority
of lawful votes);

• corrupt or illegal practices were committed by a candidate or his or her agent or
‘such practices so extensively prevailed in an election that they may reasonably
be supposed to have affected the result’;

• the successful candidate was disqualified.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/part/III/crossheading/prosecutions-for-corrupt-or-illegal-practices

None of these were satisfied either, yet Lutfur Rahman was "convicted" anyway.

Now, the police are busily gathering evidence.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tower-hamlets-scotland-yard-probe-new-allegations-after-lutfur-rahman-corruption-verdict-10218909.html

This is rather like eating your cake before you have even got the ingredients and then baking it. 

No comments: