As far as I am aware the Channel 4 investigation also revealed some expenses not being declared at all.

I'd love to give you my extended and admittedly biased account but my tablet is playing up.

I'll just say the whistleblower alleges he was targeting voters in particular constituencies. That could be construed as local campaigning. But the Canary found that work to have been declared nationally.

The company MQR also did work for the Conservatives according to "online commentators"
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/02034760475

yet that work wasn't declared according to the article.

All only alligations of course but serious ones, VERY serious.

It sounds like the Tory party suffers from wide scale corruption and should be become a banned organisation.

Better add Kent police and Felixstowe magistrates to the list of people " who just can't get over the election results" as well?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7059891.html


perhaps, just perhaps, those who claim it's down to people "who can't get over the election results" are people who seem to think that the law of the land shouldn't apply to Tories, and who are attacking our justice system and those who support it?


I have got that well known burger franchise's advert jingle going through my mind again for some reason,

^ Thank God the judge wasn't taken in by the Tory shenanigans. It's disgraceful that Craig Mackinlay (sp?) tried to stop the course of justice.

While the investigation is at it, I would dearly love to have an explanation of why the ballot boxes went missing for hours before the count, and why the ballots were destroyed afterwards (last point, allegedly).

Let justice be seen to be done.

If rules have been broken then appropriate action should be taken to punish those responsible and rectify the situation.

I agree on that although I thought it was a vain attempt by the Tories to try to block an investigation because the evidence of irregularities worthy of investigation was so strong and the Tories ended up looking bad for trying to block the police inquiry: http://www.channel4.com/news/new-exp...olice-in-court

I think part of the issue is that election rules and guidelines need to be clarified, e.g. when does national campaigning such a volunteers, letters, etc. have to be declared as part of the local campaign? I suspect that one or more individuals at CCHQ thought that it didn't matter as long as things were declared at the national level (and there are doubts about some aspects there too) and insufficient legal advice was taken (which is a very stupid thing to omit).

More links:

http://www.channel4.com/news/election-expenses

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/05/31/w...dal-exclusive/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7060791.html

http://www.channel4.com/news/election-expenses-exposed

There have been a couple of more recent updates about this important matter on the Channel 4 News twitter feed:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cj96DZnWUAA29Ee.jpg:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cj95YTeWgAEgb1u.jpg:large

Tories go to war with the Electoral Commission

No doubt they'll be going to war with the various police forces who are investigating the alleged fraud

Oh that is so Malcolm Tucker Goolding inquiry that Armando should sue for plagiarism

I saw this on Channel 4 news earlier. It really does beg the question what do the recruiters ask when they appointed this woman. Her previous activity should have barred her from the job of head of compliance impartiality for life in my opinion, she has no impartiality and lacks integrity I think.

oh dear
The Tories have sent the Electoral Commission a lawyer’s letter after it emerged the staffer who spearheaded the Thanet election expenses inquiry had made a string of anti-Tory comments. Louise Edwards is the Electoral Commission’s Head of Regulatory Compliance – it was her who provided a witness statement to the police on the Commission’s behalf in Thanet. Her Facebook page is full of anti-Tory rants, including:

“Louise Edwards cannot believe that she lives under a tory PM again! what is wrong with people?”

“just don’t understand what people were thinking – do they not remember the Tories before?”

“doesn’t want to live under a tory government”

The Tories say Edwards is guilty of making misleading statements to court. Will she survive the week?

http://order-order.com/

Baroness Sureka

Lol. Would you be a teensy bit biased?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7085261.html


Watch as the PM treats Jon Snow like a 1st year journalism student.
Watch as Jon Snow pulls lie after lie from the PM.

What type of liar has been running the country for 6 years eh!

Well it seems to be working since 11 million plus voted Tory.

I think that clip just proves what a useless journalist Jon Snow is, he is too fond of his own voice. He would have done much better if he had not interrupted so much.

As to Cameron being a liar, well that is hardly news is it ?

He acts as if the whole "year is long enough" thing is an absolute whereas the granting of the extension is all part of the RPA

People are aloud to vote for liars if they think they will be well served.


And allow Cameron to use up precious air time with his lies? nah.

Why not it could be his downfall

Id guess because he wanted to avoid talking about his attempts to stop the extention. But when Jon interjects forcing him to confront those suspicious efforts (employing a QC) he pretends to not have understood the question and responds "that was in one particular seat"

Cameron lied (he says, "actually, we're not doing that" ) , then quickly changed the subject. Jon wanted to stay on the subject of employing a QC so we could know why he'd found it necessary to employ one. Had he not interjected Cameron would have been off on a tangent. Actually he went off on a tangent anyway and we still have no response as to why employing a QC was necessary but at least he tried and his attempts, revealing.

Oh yeah - the it's okay to obstruct justice if you do it one seat at a time rule. I did try to find that in the RPA but I must have skimmed over it

It's in sub-section C of the "molehill" chapter.

Thanks but I know what he said and just repeating it doesn't answer the question I asked