Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That's not so, you and your fellow obsessives have consistently failed to demonstrate this escapade was criminal or find examples where similar behaviour has resulted in prosecution.

 

You've been trying for nearly a year now, it's gone beyond vindictive opportunistic capitalisation on a politician's embarrassment now.

You aren't aware of cases where people have been prosecuted for being drunk in public? A quick look back through this thread will 'throw up' a few, including the man arrested for being asleep in a bus stopp because he had had too much to drink.

In any case, this has never, for me, been about the law being broken, but the faith and trust we have in our politicians to behave being broken, and no one, ever, taking responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. This case is a bit funny, but also symptomatic of a government full of self-serving hypocrites

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can give you my background on this, if you like. In recent years, as I have aged, I find myself becoming increasingly angered by the attitude and behaviour of our elected representatives at nationa

Hold on a second. Fair enough, Home Affairs Minister goes to alcohol strategy discussion, and maybe the fact two ministerial colleagues are attending too is okay (even if their departments aren't dire

Still think you are missing the point. If a minister is found to be lacking in area specifically related to their portfolio then he should go. If the agriculture minister was a farmer who wasn't foll

Posted Images

That's not so, you and your fellow obsessives have consistently failed to demonstrate this escapade was criminal or find examples where similar behaviour has resulted in prosecution.

 

You've been trying for nearly a year now, it's gone beyond vindictive opportunistic capitalisation on a politician's embarrassment now.

 

 

Declan, I very much admire your support for this young man but I don’t share your enthusiasm. Surely you must accept that his misdemeanor was a very serious one, and when you take into consideration his “instruction” to the general public to “behave” during the festivities, only to fall foul himself, I feel he should have been removed from his post!

I personally think he is a very opinionated and arrogant young man, and how he managed to win by such a margin surprised me. Being a PSM boy I speak to loads of people young and old, and nobody seems to have a good word to say about him. I also remember as a lad spending a lot of time at Glendown Farm, and recall that they have a lot of livestock, did Buster manage to get them to vote for JW by proxy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or even some Gobags in Peel for Minister Crookall. That was a lot closer poll. Although the alternative vote was clearly split between the four unsuccessful candidates, the runner-up lost by just 31 votes, about 5%. Considering that enthusiastic granny/non-English speaking/kiddie proxy farming can net a good 10% of the vote or so it does make one wonder.

 

Ministers Spewin Juan and Dim Tim Crookall were the only examples mentioned in court that Buster had offered his golden hand to, perhaps there were more. Perhaps, indeed there were no others at all. Just saying. Like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or even some Gobags in Peel for Minister Crookall. That was a lot closer poll. Although the alternative vote was clearly split between the four unsuccessful candidates, the runner-up lost by just 31 votes, about 5%. Considering that enthusiastic granny/non-English speaking/kiddie proxy farming can net a good 10% of the vote or so it does make one wonder.

 

I think you're mistaken here. When Buster was doing his bragging it was back in 2010, so he must have been referring to the 2006 election - Crookall won that by 127 votes over Hazel Hannan. His 31 vote majority was in 2011 when he won with only 28% of the vote.

 

You're probably wrong about the extent to which you can fix election results on the Island using proxy or absent votes (it is much easier in the UK when they have postal voting on demand). After all it was detected pretty easily in Douglas East - but that's probably better discussed on that thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find it was all detected on another thread on this very forum.

 

Indeed from about here onwards. The huge rise in the number of people who 'applied' for proxies was also picked up by Stephen Carse and co at Economic Affairs though. The point is though that such things can't happen without causing some sort of row, if only when people turn up at the polling station to be told that they have already voted. You can fix things much easier in the UK with postal votes - particularly if you register non-existent people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or even some Gobags in Peel for Minister Crookall. That was a lot closer poll. Although the alternative vote was clearly split between the four unsuccessful candidates, the runner-up lost by just 31 votes, about 5%. Considering that enthusiastic granny/non-English speaking/kiddie proxy farming can net a good 10% of the vote or so it does make one wonder.

 

I think you're mistaken here. When Buster was doing his bragging it was back in 2010, so he must have been referring to the 2006 election - Crookall won that by 127 votes over Hazel Hannan. His 31 vote majority was in 2011 when he won with only 28% of the vote.

 

You're probably wrong about the extent to which you can fix election results on the Island using proxy or absent votes (it is much easier in the UK when they have postal voting on demand). After all it was detected pretty easily in Douglas East - but that's probably better discussed on that thread.

 

Yep, point taken.

 

Still, the master had supposedly given his lesson. And let's say if someone won by a huge landslide and part of that landslide was say, a handful of questionable votes, does that mean we can say it doesn't really matter because the questionable votes had no impact on the final result?

 

And by the very same token, if someone didn't get in, even by using a large number of allegedly dodgy votes, does that make it alright, because it did not effect the vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]let's say if someone won by a huge landslide and part of that landslide was say, a handful of questionable votes, does that mean we can say it doesn't really matter because the questionable votes had no impact on the final result?

 

And by the very same token, if someone didn't get in, even by using a large number of allegedly dodgy votes, does that make it alright, because it did not effect the vote?

 

There's two different things here. The first is that if someone breaks electoral law, then they should be prosecuted for that, as happened with Mr Lewin. This should apply whether the illegal actions were successful in getting the chosen candidate elected or not.

 

The second thing is whether something occurred to make the election result "unsafe" . This doesn't even have to be anything illegal - for example the Winchester by-election in 1997 was caused by voting papers being rejected "for want of official mark" (that's the embossing thing they use on ballot papers before handing them to you). There weren't many but because the majority was only 2, they could have altered the result. So a fresh election was called (British Courts very rarely alter the result - they always seem to call for a new one) even though none of the candidates or campaigns were responsible for the failure.

 

Now it may be that the winning candidate was one of the people who broke the law, as happened in 2010 in Oldham East and Saddleworth, when the election was re-done and the MP who broke the law was forbidden from standing in it. And it might be that if an MHK broke the law in such a way that they could be automatically disqualified from the Keys and their seat declared vacant, even if the illegalities had not affected the result. But they are two separate issues here - breaking electoral law and something making the result wrong - and you can have one without the other.

Edited by Roger Mexico
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that either the 2006 Rushen or Peel results are dodgy.

 

 

 

a. Buster's involvement in those campaigns is based on only on someone's recollection of a claim by Buster.

b. How reliable is that recollection?

c. Even if it is accurate, Buster's pleaded guilty to far bigger untruths during this farrago.

d. The claim was he'd assisted them, not "ran their campaign" or "got them elected". It could be no more than an informal chat, and Buster talked up his role.

e. in Douglas East, members of the public, the police, govt officials, the returning officer, the newspaper all raised concerns about proxy voting before the count. But Hazel Hannen stood in the count and watched her job disappear and didn't challenge the number of proxy votes for Crookall?

f. Watterson won by a thousand votes in a three member constituency. A thousand ballots all for just one candidate and no one cried foul?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Declan, if only we had some sort of news gathering organisations who could pick up the phone and ask the ministers if Charles 'Buster' Lewin had assisted or advised during any elections in which they stood and, if so, did they ask him, or did he offer, and how involved was he.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • ans locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...