![]() |
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,853
![]() |
Judges rule in favour of Labour in disputed vote - Burnley Express
Sickening. It's like the Ebanks situation all over again. who makes the decisions to risk bills like this for a single council seat (while they lose so many councillors anyway because of mismanagement). Last edited by For_England; 09-02-2008 at 02:26 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Oxonia
Posts: 3,974
![]() |
Foolish.
The intention of the voter is paramount. It is desirable, not necessary, for the voter to indicate his/her intention with an X. The Returning Officer would have made the decision in the presence of all candidates or agents (all non-standard votes are treated in this fashion). It is at that stage an objection should have been made. I've been on 8 ballots and have been to 20 or so election counts in England. Once the decision is made it is pointless to challenge it in the courts unless you are 100% certain of victory. I topped a poll by 2 votes (albeit where 3 seats were up for grabs) and all parties agreed even though I pushed 2 Tories behind me. What a waste of time and money. What does deja vous mean? Do you not mean deja vu? (Sorry for the lack of acute accents).
__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,056
Party: BNP
![]() |
Quote:
![]() |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
This site is owned and operated by MyCartel Limited © 2007. Hosting: BookFizz.
This site supports Label My Food and Politigg
My latest commercial site: Cell Phone News 2.0 - [Mobile version]