At the county council elections in May, we had the fairly unusual
sitation
in one of the divisions in my neck of the woods where two candidates
were
tied, even after a recount, so the winner had to be decided by the
drawing
of lots. Those of you with sufficient willingness to donate vast
quantities
of personal data to Meta can view that taking place here:
https://www.facebook.com/markgoodge/videos/1338682404079900
Anyway, the losing candidate has since decided to challenge this by
means of
an Electoral Petition to the Royal Courts of Justice, in the grounds
that it
had been rigged prior to the draw taking place in order to ensure that
her
opponent "won".
Is there any way I can track the progress of this case online, and even better get a copy of the judgment as and when it's made? I have googled,
and
duckduckgoed, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious way to do that. It doesn't help that it isn't immediately apparent what sub-category of
RCoJ
hearing it will be.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 10:14:07 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
Is there any way I can track the progress of this case online, and even
better get a copy of the judgment as and when it's made? I have googled,
and duckduckgoed, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious way to do that. It >> doesn't help that it isn't immediately apparent what sub-category of
RCoJ hearing it will be.
My Duckduckgo-fu is clearly no better than yours though, purely for >curiosity's sake, I'd be interested in any follow-ups and I hope you'll
keep us posted as and when.
If you haven't already seen it, the video in the Evesham Journal was
taken from a different point of view and unless the two people are
anything other than election officials - party members from the winning
team; father and brother of the winning candidate etc etc etc - I can't
see any sleight of hand.
It seems to me that the challenge is all just part of the loser's
playbook: the subtext being "if you had only just shut up and appointed
me regardless then you wouldn't have had to be dragged through all this >unnecessary, pointless timewasting and expense."
At the county council elections in May, we had the fairly unusual sitation
in one of the divisions in my neck of the woods where two candidates were >tied, even after a recount, so the winner had to be decided by the drawing
of lots. Those of you with sufficient willingness to donate vast quantities >of personal data to Meta can view that taking place here:
https://www.facebook.com/markgoodge/videos/1338682404079900
Anyway, the losing candidate has since decided to challenge this by means of >an Electoral Petition to the Royal Courts of Justice, in the grounds that it >had been rigged prior to the draw taking place in order to ensure that her >opponent "won".
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 11:14:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
At the county council elections in May, we had the fairly unusual sitation >>in one of the divisions in my neck of the woods where two candidates were >>tied, even after a recount, so the winner had to be decided by the drawing >>of lots. Those of you with sufficient willingness to donate vast quantities >>of personal data to Meta can view that taking place here:
https://www.facebook.com/markgoodge/videos/1338682404079900
Anyway, the losing candidate has since decided to challenge this by means of >>an Electoral Petition to the Royal Courts of Justice, in the grounds that it >>had been rigged prior to the draw taking place in order to ensure that her >>opponent "won".
Apparently there was a directions hearing yesterday. I don't have any
details on that. But the full text of the petition itself is on the council website:
https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/?view=article&id=1499:petition-worcestershire-county-council-1-may-2025&catid=2
or https://tinyurl.com/bzcvhdzs
On 2025-07-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Apparently there was a directions hearing yesterday. I don't have any
details on that. But the full text of the petition itself is on the council >> website:
https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/?view=article&id=1499:petition-worcestershire-county-council-1-may-2025&catid=2
or https://tinyurl.com/bzcvhdzs
The conspiracy is wide-ranging, I see.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 11:14:07 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
At the county council elections in May, we had the fairly unusual sitation >> in one of the divisions in my neck of the woods where two candidates were
tied, even after a recount, so the winner had to be decided by the drawing >> of lots. Those of you with sufficient willingness to donate vast quantities >> of personal data to Meta can view that taking place here:
https://www.facebook.com/markgoodge/videos/1338682404079900
Anyway, the losing candidate has since decided to challenge this by means of >> an Electoral Petition to the Royal Courts of Justice, in the grounds that it >> had been rigged prior to the draw taking place in order to ensure that her >> opponent "won".
Apparently there was a directions hearing yesterday. I don't have any
details on that. But the full text of the petition itself is on the council website:
https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/?view=article&id=1499:petition-worcestershire-county-council-1-may-2025&catid=2
or https://tinyurl.com/bzcvhdzs
On 17/07/2025 12:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 11:14:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
At the county council elections in May, we had the fairly unusual sitation >>> in one of the divisions in my neck of the woods where two candidates were >>> tied, even after a recount, so the winner had to be decided by the drawing >>> of lots. Those of you with sufficient willingness to donate vast quantities >>> of personal data to Meta can view that taking place here:
https://www.facebook.com/markgoodge/videos/1338682404079900
Anyway, the losing candidate has since decided to challenge this by means of
an Electoral Petition to the Royal Courts of Justice, in the grounds that it
had been rigged prior to the draw taking place in order to ensure that her >>> opponent "won".
Apparently there was a directions hearing yesterday. I don't have any
details on that. But the full text of the petition itself is on the council >> website:
https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/?view=article&id=1499:petition-worcestershire-county-council-1-may-2025&catid=2
or https://tinyurl.com/bzcvhdzs
Although the petition seems like a load of sour grapes, and is
incredibly light on relevant facts, local politics is such a sleazy and
nasty business that I wouldn't at all dismiss the possibility that the
result was rigged.
Was it, do you think?
And is your view not coloured at all by the fact that the party whose >candidate 'won' is your party too?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:50:16 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 11:14:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
At the county council elections in May, we had the fairly unusual sitation >>>> in one of the divisions in my neck of the woods where two candidates were >>>> tied, even after a recount, so the winner had to be decided by the drawing >>>> of lots. Those of you with sufficient willingness to donate vast quantities
of personal data to Meta can view that taking place here:
https://www.facebook.com/markgoodge/videos/1338682404079900
Anyway, the losing candidate has since decided to challenge this by means of
an Electoral Petition to the Royal Courts of Justice, in the grounds that it
had been rigged prior to the draw taking place in order to ensure that her >>>> opponent "won".
Apparently there was a directions hearing yesterday. I don't have any
details on that. But the full text of the petition itself is on the council >>> website:
https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/?view=article&id=1499:petition-worcestershire-county-council-1-may-2025&catid=2
or https://tinyurl.com/bzcvhdzs
Although the petition seems like a load of sour grapes, and is
incredibly light on relevant facts, local politics is such a sleazy and
nasty business that I wouldn't at all dismiss the possibility that the
result was rigged.
Was it, do you think?
Of course it wasn't. It's arguable (although without any strong evidence) that the drawing of lots could have been better organised (although, from my perspective, it seemed to have been done appropriately). But the idea that
it was deliberately rigged is implausible in the extreme. The method used
was one which is recommended in such circumstances, precisely because it's unambiguous and easy to demonstrate fairness. You start with an empty ballot box (which is shown to those present to be empty), then a ballot paper for each candidate (again, shown to those present) are put into the box, and
then one is drawn out unsighted. The paper drawn out is the winner, and this is shown to those present, and then the remaining paper is removed and also shown to those present.
Derren Brown might be able to fake that, given
suitable preparation, but to expect that level of prestidigitation from a pair of amateurs is entirely unrealistic.
In any case, the petitioner doesn't seem at all confident in her assertion that it was rigged, given that she also bundles in a whole host of other complaints.
Some of those, again, might have some justification on their
own, such as the complaint that not enough was done to stop people videoing proceedings and potentially breaching the secrecy of the ballot, but even if upheld that would not affect the result. There isn't a blanket ban on photography and video in the count hall anyway, there is simply a rule that any photography or videoing must not compromise the secrecy of the ballot. It's perfectly acceptable to photograph and video the announcements of the results, and to photograph and video any drawing of lots shold it be necessary. The media routinely does that at any elections of any significance.
As it happens, the petitioner is right that there was one person present who was routinely videoing (and, I'm told, livestreaming) the count staff
sorting and counting the ballot papers, which is unlawful. That's why the Returing Officer made an announcment instructing people to cease doing so. But what the petitioner appears to have failed to observe is that the person doing the videoing was one of her own supporters.
Similarly, the allegation that the winning candidate and her supporters were intimidating voters at the polling stations is extremely implausible. No
such complaint was made by any of the other defeated candidates, and there was no hint of any such complaints by voters on local social media. Although that is, of course, absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence, the fact that this particular dog most certainly did not bark is worthy of note. It's the sort of thing that the Facebook keyboard warriors would have been only to quick to pick up on if there had been any evidence of it actually happening.
And is your view not coloured at all by the fact that the party whose
candidate 'won' is your party too?
No, the winning candidate was from a completely different party to mine.
On 18/07/2025 12:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:50:16 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 17/07/2025 12:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 11:14:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
At the county council elections in May, we had the fairly unusual sitation
in one of the divisions in my neck of the woods where two candidates were >>>>> tied, even after a recount, so the winner had to be decided by the drawing
of lots. Those of you with sufficient willingness to donate vast quantities
of personal data to Meta can view that taking place here:
https://www.facebook.com/markgoodge/videos/1338682404079900
Anyway, the losing candidate has since decided to challenge this by means of
an Electoral Petition to the Royal Courts of Justice, in the grounds that it
had been rigged prior to the draw taking place in order to ensure that her
opponent "won".
Apparently there was a directions hearing yesterday. I don't have any
details on that. But the full text of the petition itself is on the council
website:
https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/?view=article&id=1499:petition-worcestershire-county-council-1-may-2025&catid=2
or https://tinyurl.com/bzcvhdzs
Although the petition seems like a load of sour grapes, and is
incredibly light on relevant facts, local politics is such a sleazy and
nasty business that I wouldn't at all dismiss the possibility that the
result was rigged.
Was it, do you think?
Of course it wasn't. It's arguable (although without any strong evidence)
that the drawing of lots could have been better organised (although, from my >> perspective, it seemed to have been done appropriately). But the idea that >> it was deliberately rigged is implausible in the extreme. The method used
was one which is recommended in such circumstances, precisely because it's >> unambiguous and easy to demonstrate fairness. You start with an empty ballot >> box (which is shown to those present to be empty), then a ballot paper for >> each candidate (again, shown to those present) are put into the box, and
then one is drawn out unsighted. The paper drawn out is the winner, and this >> is shown to those present, and then the remaining paper is removed and also >> shown to those present.
But the fairness of all that happened is precisely what is disputed in
the Petition linked to above. So, there's no 'of course' about it.
That's just pre-judging the matter with a closed mind.
Derren Brown might be able to fake that, given
suitable preparation, but to expect that level of prestidigitation from a
pair of amateurs is entirely unrealistic.
It would only take a minimal bit of collusion, eg a whisper 'take the
top one' or 'take the one that's folded up more tightly' and it would
hardly be Magic Circle territory.
As it happens, the petitioner is right that there was one person present who >> was routinely videoing (and, I'm told, livestreaming) the count staff
sorting and counting the ballot papers, which is unlawful. That's why the
Returing Officer made an announcment instructing people to cease doing so. >> But what the petitioner appears to have failed to observe is that the person >> doing the videoing was one of her own supporters.
I don't know why it should be unlawful, but there's presumably a good
reason, which I guess is to do with the fairness of the election
process. If the rule is there, surely it has to be scrupulously
observed? So, was the Returning Officer within his rights effectively
just to say 'stop it' with no other penalty?
Apparently there was a directions hearing yesterday. I don't have any
details on that.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:33:54 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 12:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:50:16 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 17/07/2025 12:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 11:14:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
At the county council elections in May, we had the fairly unusual sitation
in one of the divisions in my neck of the woods where two candidates were
tied, even after a recount, so the winner had to be decided by the drawing
of lots. Those of you with sufficient willingness to donate vast quantities
of personal data to Meta can view that taking place here:
https://www.facebook.com/markgoodge/videos/1338682404079900
Anyway, the losing candidate has since decided to challenge this by means of
an Electoral Petition to the Royal Courts of Justice, in the grounds that it
had been rigged prior to the draw taking place in order to ensure that her
opponent "won".
Apparently there was a directions hearing yesterday. I don't have any >>>>> details on that. But the full text of the petition itself is on the council
website:
https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/?view=article&id=1499:petition-worcestershire-county-council-1-may-2025&catid=2
or https://tinyurl.com/bzcvhdzs
Although the petition seems like a load of sour grapes, and is
incredibly light on relevant facts, local politics is such a sleazy and >>>> nasty business that I wouldn't at all dismiss the possibility that the >>>> result was rigged.
Was it, do you think?
Of course it wasn't. It's arguable (although without any strong evidence) >>> that the drawing of lots could have been better organised (although, from my
perspective, it seemed to have been done appropriately). But the idea that >>> it was deliberately rigged is implausible in the extreme. The method used >>> was one which is recommended in such circumstances, precisely because it's >>> unambiguous and easy to demonstrate fairness. You start with an empty ballot
box (which is shown to those present to be empty), then a ballot paper for >>> each candidate (again, shown to those present) are put into the box, and >>> then one is drawn out unsighted. The paper drawn out is the winner, and this
is shown to those present, and then the remaining paper is removed and also >>> shown to those present.
But the fairness of all that happened is precisely what is disputed in
the Petition linked to above. So, there's no 'of course' about it.
That's just pre-judging the matter with a closed mind.
The "of course" is because, unlike you, I was there. The idea that it was rigged is so utterly implausible that, as it happens, even the petitioner doesn't make that claim.
Derren Brown might be able to fake that, given
suitable preparation, but to expect that level of prestidigitation from a >>> pair of amateurs is entirely unrealistic.
It would only take a minimal bit of collusion, eg a whisper 'take the
top one' or 'take the one that's folded up more tightly' and it would
hardly be Magic Circle territory.
The papers were given a good shuffle inside the box. You'd have to be very confident of their positions to be able to say anything like that. And it
all took place in full view of everyone in the count hall. Any whispering between the two officers would have been very obvious.
As it happens, the petitioner is right that there was one person present who
was routinely videoing (and, I'm told, livestreaming) the count staff
sorting and counting the ballot papers, which is unlawful. That's why the >>> Returing Officer made an announcment instructing people to cease doing so. >>> But what the petitioner appears to have failed to observe is that the person
doing the videoing was one of her own supporters.
I don't know why it should be unlawful, but there's presumably a good
reason, which I guess is to do with the fairness of the election
process. If the rule is there, surely it has to be scrupulously
observed? So, was the Returning Officer within his rights effectively
just to say 'stop it' with no other penalty?
The Returning Officer has absolute power to prevent or restrict photography or filming in a count venue. And it is explicitly unlawful to post photos of any identifiable ballot paper while the count is in progress.
On 18/07/2025 20:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
The "of course" is because, unlike you, I was there. The idea that it was
rigged is so utterly implausible that, as it happens, even the petitioner
doesn't make that claim.
Well, it seems she does actually. She says "this process was not
carried out in accordance with due process of law, open to fraud and >corruption".
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:50:36 +0100, I <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >wrote:
Apparently there was a directions hearing yesterday. I don't have any >>details on that.
I do now. Costs were awarded against the petitioner due to errors in the >petition, and the next stage will be a hearing in which the petition could
be dismissed without it going to trial.
To be honest, I quite hope it isn't dismissed. I think a full ruling on the >petition would be somewhat interesting to read. Also, a trial would avoid
the petitioner being able to claim that their case was valid but it was lost >on a mere technicality, something which she is already preparing the ground >for on social media.
The petitioner has now started a crowdfunder to cover her costs.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 22:23:31 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 20:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
The "of course" is because, unlike you, I was there. The idea that it was >>> rigged is so utterly implausible that, as it happens, even the petitioner >>> doesn't make that claim.
Well, it seems she does actually. She says "this process was not
carried out in accordance with due process of law, open to fraud and
corruption".
Her claim is that it wasn't lawful. Which is simply incorrect. Drawing of lots is explicitly stated in legislation as the way to resolve a tie.
On 19/07/2025 13:10, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 22:23:31 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> On 18/07/2025 20:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
The "of course" is because, unlike you, I was there. The idea that it was >>>> rigged is so utterly implausible that, as it happens, even the petitioner >>>> doesn't make that claim.
Well, it seems she does actually. She says "this process was not
carried out in accordance with due process of law, open to fraud and
corruption".
Her claim is that it wasn't lawful. Which is simply incorrect. Drawing of
lots is explicitly stated in legislation as the way to resolve a tie.
Indeed. But her argument, as is absolutely clear from the above, is not
with the principle but that the process wasn't carried out properly or >fairly.
You weaken your position by, perhaps deliberately, misunderstanding it.
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 16:41:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 13:10, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 22:23:31 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 18/07/2025 20:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
The "of course" is because, unlike you, I was there. The idea that it was >>>>> rigged is so utterly implausible that, as it happens, even the petitioner >>>>> doesn't make that claim.
Well, it seems she does actually. She says "this process was not
carried out in accordance with due process of law, open to fraud and
corruption".
Her claim is that it wasn't lawful. Which is simply incorrect. Drawing of >>> lots is explicitly stated in legislation as the way to resolve a tie.
Indeed. But her argument, as is absolutely clear from the above, is not
with the principle but that the process wasn't carried out properly or
fairly.
Well, her position isn't particularly clear.
She starts out by complaining about the process,
but when it comes to the actual relief requested she asks
for the result to be set aside on the grounds that drawing lots was
unlawful.
Meanwhile, in her subsequent social media posts and crowdfunding
appeal, she specifically refers to drawing lots as "nonsense" and solicits funds on the basis that her petition will help to change this practice.
You weaken your position by, perhaps deliberately, misunderstanding it.
It's not me she needs to convince, it's a court. She's not doing very well, so far.
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 16:41:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 13:10, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 22:23:31 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 18/07/2025 20:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
The "of course" is because, unlike you, I was there. The idea that it was >>>>> rigged is so utterly implausible that, as it happens, even the petitioner >>>>> doesn't make that claim.
Well, it seems she does actually. She says "this process was not
carried out in accordance with due process of law, open to fraud and
corruption".
Her claim is that it wasn't lawful. Which is simply incorrect. Drawing of >>> lots is explicitly stated in legislation as the way to resolve a tie.
Indeed. But her argument, as is absolutely clear from the above, is not
with the principle but that the process wasn't carried out properly or
fairly.
Well, her position isn't particularly clear. She starts out by complaining about the process, but when it comes to the actual relief requested she asks for the result to be set aside on the grounds that drawing lots was
unlawful.
Meanwhile, in her subsequent social media posts and crowdfunding
appeal, she specifically refers to drawing lots as "nonsense" and solicits funds on the basis that her petition will help to change this practice.
You weaken your position by, perhaps deliberately, misunderstanding it.
It's not me she needs to convince, it's a court. She's not doing very well, so far.
Mark
On 19/07/2025 19:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, her position isn't particularly clear.
That's very true. It comes about by being a litigant-in-person who
obviously thinks legal processes are easy and professionals are an >unnecessary encumbrance. But in that, she actually has a lot in common
with many others in this group.
On 19/07/2025 07:39 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, her position isn't particularly clear. She starts out by complaining >> about the process, but when it comes to the actual relief requested she asks >> for the result to be set aside on the grounds that drawing lots was
unlawful.
"was unlawful" or "was done unlawfully"?
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 11:35:31 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 07:39 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, her position isn't particularly clear. She starts out by complaining >>> about the process, but when it comes to the actual relief requested she asks
for the result to be set aside on the grounds that drawing lots was
unlawful.
"was unlawful" or "was done unlawfully"?
What she actually asks for, in her petition, is:
A declaration that the said Hannah Robson was NOT Elected by a due process
of law, namely by the Electorate as the Representation of Peoples Act 1983
provides; but by an equivalent of a "toss of a coin" and therefore the
election declaration be void.
https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/statutory/68664cb3bb52a06c094bf779
You can intepret that how you want. But my understanding of it is that she appears to believe that drawing lots is not a valid means of electing a candidate as per the Representation of the People Act 1983. That is, she believes that drawing lots is unlawful.
Unfortunately, this is where acting as an uninformed litigant in person has let her down, as any legal professional experienced in electoral law (or,
for that matter, even a quick Google) would have told her that the relevant legislation is, in fact, the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, which has this to say in paragraph 49 of Schedule 2:
Where, after the counting of the votes (including any re-count) is
completed, an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates
and the addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be
declared elected, the returning officer must forthwith decide between
those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot
falls had received an additional vote.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/3304/schedule/2/paragraph/49
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 11:35:31 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 07:39 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, her position isn't particularly clear. She starts out by complaining >>> about the process, but when it comes to the actual relief requested she asks
for the result to be set aside on the grounds that drawing lots was
unlawful.
"was unlawful" or "was done unlawfully"?
What she actually asks for, in her petition, is:
A declaration that the said Hannah Robson was NOT Elected by a due process
of law, namely by the Electorate as the Representation of Peoples Act 1983
provides; but by an equivalent of a "toss of a coin" and therefore the
election declaration be void.
https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/statutory/68664cb3bb52a06c094bf779
You can intepret that how you want. But my understanding of it is that she appears to believe that drawing lots is not a valid means of electing a candidate as per the Representation of the People Act 1983. That is, she believes that drawing lots is unlawful.
Unfortunately, this is where acting as an uninformed litigant in person has let her down, as any legal professional experienced in electoral law (or,
for that matter, even a quick Google) would have told her that the relevant legislation is, in fact, the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, which has this to say in paragraph 49 of Schedule 2:
Where, after the counting of the votes (including any re-count) is
completed, an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates
and the addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be
declared elected, the returning officer must forthwith decide between
those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot
falls had received an additional vote.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/3304/schedule/2/paragraph/49
On 20/07/2025 13:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 11:35:31 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 07:39 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, her position isn't particularly clear. She starts out by complaining >>>> about the process, but when it comes to the actual relief requested she asks
for the result to be set aside on the grounds that drawing lots was
unlawful.
"was unlawful" or "was done unlawfully"?
What she actually asks for, in her petition, is:
A declaration that the said Hannah Robson was NOT Elected by a due process
of law, namely by the Electorate as the Representation of Peoples Act 1983
provides; but by an equivalent of a "toss of a coin" and therefore the
election declaration be void.
https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/statutory/68664cb3bb52a06c094bf779
You can intepret that how you want. But my understanding of it is that she >> appears to believe that drawing lots is not a valid means of electing a
candidate as per the Representation of the People Act 1983. That is, she
believes that drawing lots is unlawful.
She does, which is wrong. But she *also* says it was not conducted
fairly, for the reasons set out in her paragraph 3.3.
hasUnfortunately, this is where acting as an uninformed litigant in person
let her down, as any legal professional experienced in electoral law (or,
for that matter, even a quick Google) would have told her that the relevant >> legislation is, in fact, the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and >> Wales) Rules 2006, which has this to say in paragraph 49 of Schedule 2:
Where, after the counting of the votes (including any re-count) is
completed, an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates >> and the addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be
declared elected, the returning officer must forthwith decide between
those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot >> falls had received an additional vote.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/3304/schedule/2/paragraph/49
It can still be conducted unfairly.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 15:25:08 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/07/2025 13:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 11:35:31 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 07:39 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, her position isn't particularly clear. She starts out by complaining
about the process, but when it comes to the actual relief requested she asks
for the result to be set aside on the grounds that drawing lots was
unlawful.
"was unlawful" or "was done unlawfully"?
What she actually asks for, in her petition, is:
A declaration that the said Hannah Robson was NOT Elected by a due process
of law, namely by the Electorate as the Representation of Peoples Act 1983
provides; but by an equivalent of a "toss of a coin" and therefore the >>> election declaration be void.
https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/statutory/68664cb3bb52a06c094bf779
You can intepret that how you want. But my understanding of it is that she >>> appears to believe that drawing lots is not a valid means of electing a
candidate as per the Representation of the People Act 1983. That is, she >>> believes that drawing lots is unlawful.
She does, which is wrong. But she *also* says it was not conducted
fairly, for the reasons set out in her paragraph 3.3.
Yes, but that's my point. She starts off by complaining that it wasn't done properly, but then ignores that when it comes to the actual decision she wants from the court.
Now, that, too, is almost certainly because of her lack of legal knowledge. But, even so, I think a better-informed LiP wouldn't have made that mistake.
hasUnfortunately, this is where acting as an uninformed litigant in person
let her down, as any legal professional experienced in electoral law (or, >>> for that matter, even a quick Google) would have told her that the relevant >>> legislation is, in fact, the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and >>> Wales) Rules 2006, which has this to say in paragraph 49 of Schedule 2:
Where, after the counting of the votes (including any re-count) is
completed, an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates
and the addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be >>> declared elected, the returning officer must forthwith decide between >>> those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot
falls had received an additional vote.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/3304/schedule/2/paragraph/49
It can still be conducted unfairly.
It can indeed. If she'd pressed home that point, and asked for a declaration that it was conducted unfairly or improperly, she'd have a valid case. I still don't think she'd win, but it would be a question worth putting to a court. As it is, she's not going to get a decision on that, because the
thing she's asked for a decision on is one where she is so clearly and obviously wrong that it may simply be dismissed.
On 20/07/2025 01:15 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
What she actually asks for, in her petition, is:
A declaration that the said Hannah Robson was NOT Elected by a due process
of law, namely by the Electorate as the Representation of Peoples Act 1983
provides; but by an equivalent of a "toss of a coin" and therefore the
election declaration be void.
https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/statutory/68664cb3bb52a06c094bf779
You can intepret that how you want. But my understanding of it is that she >> appears to believe that drawing lots is not a valid means of electing a
candidate as per the Representation of the People Act 1983. That is, she
believes that drawing lots is unlawful.
Unfortunately, this is where acting as an uninformed litigant in person has >> let her down, as any legal professional experienced in electoral law (or,
for that matter, even a quick Google) would have told her that the relevant >> legislation is, in fact, the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and >> Wales) Rules 2006, which has this to say in paragraph 49 of Schedule 2:
Where, after the counting of the votes (including any re-count) is
completed, an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates >> and the addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be
declared elected, the returning officer must forthwith decide between
those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot >> falls had received an additional vote.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/3304/schedule/2/paragraph/49
Yes, that would be lawful (obviously), but it still has to be done
lawfully (which will mean, among other things, in good faith and without >bias).
Didn't you report that her case encompassed an allegation of a corrupt >practise in handling the ballot boxes?
I know more about it than that, but I'm sure I didn't imagine it.
On 20/07/2025 01:15 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 11:35:31 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 07:39 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, her position isn't particularly clear. She starts out by
complaining
about the process, but when it comes to the actual relief requested
she asks
for the result to be set aside on the grounds that drawing lots was
unlawful.
"was unlawful" or "was done unlawfully"?
What she actually asks for, in her petition, is:
A declaration that the said Hannah Robson was NOT Elected by a due
process
of law, namely by the Electorate as the Representation of Peoples
Act 1983
provides; but by an equivalent of a "toss of a coin" and therefore the
election declaration be void.
https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/statutory/68664cb3bb52a06c094bf779
You can intepret that how you want. But my understanding of it is that
she
appears to believe that drawing lots is not a valid means of electing a
candidate as per the Representation of the People Act 1983. That is, she
believes that drawing lots is unlawful.
Unfortunately, this is where acting as an uninformed litigant in
person has
let her down, as any legal professional experienced in electoral law (or,
for that matter, even a quick Google) would have told her that the
relevant
legislation is, in fact, the Local Elections (Principal Areas)
(England and
Wales) Rules 2006, which has this to say in paragraph 49 of Schedule 2:
Where, after the counting of the votes (including any re-count) is
completed, an equality of votes is found to exist between any
candidates
and the addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be
declared elected, the returning officer must forthwith decide between
those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom
the lot
falls had received an additional vote.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/3304/schedule/2/paragraph/49
Yes, that would be lawful (obviously), but it still has to be done
lawfully (which will mean, among other things, in good faith and without bias).
Didn't you report that her case encompassed an allegation of a corrupt practise in handling the ballot boxes?
I know more about it than that, but I'm sure I didn't imagine it.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 15:26:59 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/07/2025 01:15 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
What she actually asks for, in her petition, is:
A declaration that the said Hannah Robson was NOT Elected by a due process
of law, namely by the Electorate as the Representation of Peoples Act 1983
provides; but by an equivalent of a "toss of a coin" and therefore the >>> election declaration be void.
https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/statutory/68664cb3bb52a06c094bf779
You can intepret that how you want. But my understanding of it is that she >>> appears to believe that drawing lots is not a valid means of electing a
candidate as per the Representation of the People Act 1983. That is, she >>> believes that drawing lots is unlawful.
Unfortunately, this is where acting as an uninformed litigant in person has >>> let her down, as any legal professional experienced in electoral law (or, >>> for that matter, even a quick Google) would have told her that the relevant >>> legislation is, in fact, the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and >>> Wales) Rules 2006, which has this to say in paragraph 49 of Schedule 2:
Where, after the counting of the votes (including any re-count) is
completed, an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates
and the addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be >>> declared elected, the returning officer must forthwith decide between >>> those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot
falls had received an additional vote.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/3304/schedule/2/paragraph/49
Yes, that would be lawful (obviously), but it still has to be done
lawfully (which will mean, among other things, in good faith and without
bias).
Didn't you report that her case encompassed an allegation of a corrupt
practise in handling the ballot boxes?
I know more about it than that, but I'm sure I didn't imagine it.
In the petition (as linked to above), she starts out by claiming that the drawing of lots was badly managed and wasn't carried out appropriately. That's not an unreasonable claim, although it would, of course, need to be supported by evidence and, equally, could be refuted by the evidence of others.
The petition also refers to other complaints made directly to both the electoral authority and the police, none of which have, in her opinion, been properly investigated. I'm obviously not privy to the precise wording or nature of those complaints. But I have been in contact with one of the
people who is a subject of those complaints (and of the petition). As I understand it, the complainant's initial position was that the draw must
have been rigged, because the winning candidate's party announced the
outcome on social media before the draw was actually made. That would, as
the saying goes, be huge if true. However, timestamps on the various videos and photos of the draw show that it took place before the social media
posts. What appears to have happened is that the social media post was made after the draw, but before the official declaration of the result (which was a few minutes later, after the paperwork had been completed). That is a bit of a faux pas, and we are explicitly asked not to do that. But that
obviously doesn't invalidate the draw itself.
My assumption is that this fact was discovered in response to one of the initial complaints to the electoral authority, hence it not being repeated
in the petition. Instead, the petition starts off by complaining that the draw wasn't conducted properly, and ends up asserting that it should not
have been conducted at all. Alongside that, she also bundles in a complaint that the winning candidate's party had been intimidating people at polling stations, something which appears to be completely without evidence.
Having been knocked back at the directions hearing, in which she had costs awarded against her, she has subsequently launched a crowdfunding appeal for funds. That, again, isn't unreasonable, a lot of people involved in legal action do that. But the appeal page makes a wider claim that "these election failures are actually happening across on a large scale across the country", something which isn't part of the petition. I suspect this is added simply
in order to persuade people to fund her, on the basis that she's uncovered some massive electoral failure that is being suppressed. She claims to have "a large amount of evidence" of these failures, but gives no hint as to the nature of that evidence.
You can view her fundraiser here. It's worth a read.
https://www.givesendgo.com/GH6XK
On 20/07/2025 09:03 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
You can view her fundraiser here. It's worth a read.
https://www.givesendgo.com/GH6XK
Is that the same as her petition / submission to the court?
If not, I see no reason to read it.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 23:08:40 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/07/2025 09:03 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
You can view her fundraiser here. It's worth a read.
https://www.givesendgo.com/GH6XK
Is that the same as her petition / submission to the court?
No, it's a separate document.
If not, I see no reason to read it.
It gives an insight into her thought process.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 23:08:40 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/07/2025 09:03 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
You can view her fundraiser here. It's worth a read.
https://www.givesendgo.com/GH6XK
Is that the same as her petition / submission to the court?
No, it's a separate document.
If not, I see no reason to read it.
It gives an insight into her thought process.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:54:01 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,183 |