The Evening Standard reported this last night:
Two men have been arrested in an investigation into vote fraud in separate London boroughs.
A 38-year-old man was arrested in Tower Hamlets and a 33-year-old man was arrested in Enfield, Scotland Yard said.
Police made clear that the two cases are not linked but said both relate to alleged false declarations on nominations papers for local elections to be held on May 22.
The pair were tonight being questioned at a north London police station.
Both arrests were made on suspicion of an offence under section 65a of the Representation of People Act 1983, which relates to false statements made on nomination papers.
Sources confidently tell me the man in question in Tower Hamlets is Jewel Islam, the Conservative candidate for the Mile End ward.
Mr Islam is the man in the bottom photo. He stood for the Tories in the Mile End East ward in 2006 when he polled 454 votes. He’s a businessman has been listed as a director of three dissolved/non-dormant Brick Lane registered companies in the past three years.
Scotland Yard, where there is a special team examining the London borough elections, tell me the 38 year old has been bailed until a date in June pending further inquiries. This means he will be standing in the election next week.
My understanding is that his arrest is NOT related to any false signature, date of birth or address.
Section 65A of the Representation of the People’s Act states:
False statements in nomination papers etc.
(1)A person is guilty of a corrupt practice if, in the case of any relevant election, he causes or permits to be included in a document delivered or otherwise furnished to a returning officer for use in connection with the election—
(a)a statement of the name or home address of a candidate at the election which he knows to be false in any particular; or
[F2(aa)(where the election is a parliamentary election) a statement under rule 6(5)(b) of Schedule 1 to this Act which he knows to be false in any particular; or]
(b)anything which purports to be the signature of an elector who proposes, seconds or assents to, the nomination of such a candidate but which he knows—
(i)was not written by the elector by whom it purports to have been written, or
(ii)if written by that elector, was not written by him for the purpose of signifying that he was proposing, seconding, or (as the case may be) assenting to, that candidate’s nomination[F3 or
(c)a certificate authorising for the purposes of rule 6A of the parliamentary elections rules the use by a candidate of a description if he knows that the candidate is standing at an election in another constituency in which the poll is to be held on the same day as the poll at the election to which the certificate relates.]
[F4(1A)A person is guilty of a corrupt practice if, in the case of any relevant election, he makes in any document in which he gives his consent to his nomination as a candidate—
(a)a statement of his date of birth,
(b)a statement as to his qualification for being elected at that election, or
(c)a statement that he is not a candidate at an election for any other constituency the poll for which is to be held on the same day as the poll at the election to which the consent relates,
which he knows to be false in any particular.
(1B)For the purposes of subsection (1A), a statement as to a candidate’s qualification is a statement—
(a)that he is qualified for being elected,
(b)that he will be qualified for being elected, or
(c)that to the best of his knowledge and belief he is not disqualified for being elected.]
(2)In this section “relevant election” means—
(a)any parliamentary election, or
(b)[F5except for the purposes of subsections (1)(c) and (1A)(c),] any local government election in England or Wales.]
For the purposes of free flowing debate and interest in the election process, I’m going to allow comments but the non-libellous discussion must not relate directly to Mr Islam’s arrest. He has not been charged, let alone been tried or convicted. I’d prefer discussion to be around interpretations of this Section 65A.
Ted
Would you have included the last paragraph ie the advice to keep comments in check if it was someone from lutfur’s camp?
Yes.
Tim,
Do be reasonable. No one does electoral fraud better than Labour. That is why Conservatives Asians always seem to be caught. Probably Labour got the Tories’ nomination forms and tipped-off the police. Anyone can get a copy of a candidate’s forms BEFORE election day.
Curious Cat.
Whoops. My mistake. Thought I was replying to a comment by Tim. Better get back to work 🙂
“Asians” – seriously?
Hi Konnu,
By I do not mean Chinese or Vietnamese or Arab people, I mean those from the Indian sub-continent – predominantly those from the North-west part of the sub-continent. That is my truthful experience.
Tower Hamlets has problems with a few from East Pakistan. In my area we have problems with a few from West Pakistan and a few Sikhs over the border sharing the same spoken, but not written, language.
Corruption, endemic , has been imported into England where it discretely flourishes.
Curious Cat.
A little geography lesson – since race tensions are difficult enough without lazy use of vocabulary.
Asia stretches from the Bosphorus Strait (between Istanbul and mainland Turkey) to the Bering Strait (between Alaska and Siberia).
To characterise Asians as only belonging to the Indian sub-continent is grossly inaccurate!
=> Couldn’t
To characterise Asians as only belonging to the Indian sub-continent is grossly inaccurate!
I never did. I used “Asian” to mean what “Asian” people (in my area) call themselves and their brown coloured children.
I always tell those that are born in England, they are not Asian but English
Curious Cat.
P.S. In my area, we never have racial tensions. The only tensions that arise are created by UKIP, BNP and similar.
There is wide-spread racial tolerance here and occasional moans about the Polish.
CC.
Ted – I see the above have already started! I would like to thank you for clearly posting the rules. The only comment I make is that, at last, these rules “appear” to being enforced.
I think it can be presumed that subsection (1) can be ruled out as the nomination papers of all three candidates appear to have been signed by the same person.
Therefore, this likely relates to subsection (1A) and my guess would be that the relevant part is (1A)(c).
I meant 1A(b)
On a related issue, has anyone seen the initial postal vote data sent out by John Williams?
It looks like approximately one in ten postal votes are being rejected because the signature and/or date of birth do not match the original application, which seems incredible to me.
Apparently there is a new checking system in place using a scan of the original signatures. I was told that certain people were “surprised” to see this new system being used…
Looks like they’ve beefed up process and procedure to avoid a repeat of the last election and all the interminable allegations we had then!
I’d call 10% a pretty significant percentage. It’s not like people change their birth dates or signatures is it?
=> Couldn’t
When the same, or similar, system was introduced in my Labour area, probably about 10% of the postal votes from Asian dominated wards were rejected for invalid signature, invalid date of birth, absence of a signature and absence of a date of birth. Then, the local authority did NOT check to ensure the original of a lost or missing postal vote was excluded from the count.
Curious Cat
I’m not quite sure that everybody understands how the process works
Can you go through it in terms of what must happen and what happened in your area
…. with Mrwebberukip (or anybody else who knows for a fact) chipping in with what appears to be happening in Tower Hamlets this time around.
I would be interested to know how 10% compares to the national average. Maybe it is typical? But it seems too high to me.
I am not an expert, but I thought the law requires a 20% sampling to be checked. It looks like LBTH are going much further this time. All credit to Mr Williams and the serious crime command at Scotland Yard, who we met with a couple of months ago, they are taking this very seriously.
And as I said, according to one of our candidates, the candidates/agents from a certain other party were very surprised to see this new validation procedure in place…
That’s very interesting to see the statement as to the qualifying conditions in full.
I wasn’t aware that it was very specific as to not being able to stand for election in two places at the same time. It makes sense.
I wonder if the London Boroughs have got a database which pulls out duplicate nominations of the same person in different boroughs. It would make sense.
On the question of the individual, I’m not discussing the allegation but I’m interested in three technical points of principle and procedure which I’m wondering if Ted can answer and/or find out about.
1) Presumably a statement that a candidate has been bailed is ‘de facto’ a statement that a candidate has been arrested?
2) Does Ted actually know for certain who it is? Is there anything preventing Ted stating this as a fact?
3) Finally I’m unclear whether, when a candidate has been arrested and is being investigated, the electorate are ever informed of this fact and – if yes, who does this and what can they say? Is it the police? Is it the Returning Officer?
The reason I ask is that if it is a fact that a candidate has been arrested and if that arrest relates to an electoral irregularity – aren’t the electorate entitled to know BEFORE they vote?
(Can I emphasise I personally make a very clear distinction between
* “arrest” as a fact confirmed by the Police
* “arrest” as an uninformed allegation – see this blog post re https://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/the-vote-fraud-allegations-and-smears-have-started-lutfurites-falsely-claim-a-labour-councillor-arrested )
=> Couldn’t
Oh yes you can ……. but not in the same local authority area. Anyone doing it is disqualified from ALL the applied-for vacancies.
Curious Cat.
@cc that’s not what it says
It says
[QUOTE]a statement that he is not a candidate at an election for any other constituency the poll for which is to be held on the same day as the poll at the election to which the consent relates,[UNQUOTE]
Well all London Boroughs are holding the election on the same day – that was my line of thinking. It just made me wonder how many would-be politicians who want to “get on” apply for as many candidacies as they can – without telling the others! That would be misleading the electorate in all constituencies surely? Presumably that’s what this condition is about.
=> Couldn’t
probably refers to parliamentary constituency. That makes sense because it is like contesting two seats within the same authority’s area. The legal dilemma occurs if two or more seats are won. Hence they law stating that contesting more than one seat for the same election* (either in parliament or in local authorities) invalidates all applications. Don’t know why this is (or is thought to be) a criminal offence – there is no need to make a crime out of a civil matter.
* same election means for the same authority (authority includes the English parliament)
Curious Cat
Isn’t a ward also a constituency?
=> Couldn’t
Never heard a ward mentioned as a constituency in my last 12 active years in local government politics.
Technically a ward might be so considered but in reality, pursuant to the Tony Blair’s LGA 2000 (or 2002?) reforms, the majority of councillors are impotent because they are excluded from the vast majority of decision making – they are not part of the executive that runs the majority of council activities.
The pre-Tony Blair system has cross-party committees and co-opted members of the public which then better represented community interests. Pickles ignores the resulting mess. Local government is less democratic now than before the Tony Blair changes.
Curious Cat.
But the points you are making relate purely to the powers of the Councillors NOT to the constituency of their electorate
Ward is the political name given to the area.
What’s the equivalent of the phrase “constituency” in relation to local government elections? Given this guidance relates to both parliamentary and local government elections why wouldn’t the phrase read over to the exact equivalent in local government elections. After all we all know what it means…….
=> Couldn’t
But the points you are making relate purely to the powers of the Councillors NOT to the constituency of their electorate
People contesting elections are not councillors because of their candidacy. No my point does not refer to councillors’ powers because the people involved are election candidates.
Ward is the political name given to the area.
Ward is the name given to an electoral area within a principal area local authority.
Curious Cat.
Arrest is a fact:
http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur13/page09.htm
And Ted doesn’t state identity as a fact because it’s been confirmed not by the individual or the authorities but by anonymous sources. It’s just good journalistic practice.
I understand that. My question really related to when it could be established as a FACT which one of the three 38 year olds standing for election it was – and who could do this and when they might do this.
I guess if you get two others saying “not me guv” you get it by default!
However I’m actually more interested in who has the official responsibility of informing the relevant electorate in that ward.
IMO leaving it open ended just feeds the rumour mill – and is rather unfair on the other two candidates also aged 38!
Yes, they’re good points.
=> Couldn’t
Do pop-down to LBTH and obtain a photocopy of all 3 candidates nominations forms (Nomination, Acceptance of Nomination and the other forms signed by the party’s nominating officer)
CC.
I’ll leave that to Ted! 🙂
My sources are certain Jewel Islam has been arrested and I’m confident that’s right.
The police never give out or confirm names of those arrested.
I
So Ted, what would you see as being the responsibility of the political parties to be open and transparent with the electorate in this sort of eventuality?
* Do they sit on it?
* Do they pop up and say our 38 year old has not been arrested?
* What would be your recommendation to them be in terms of the ramifications for the election generally?
I ask as a matter of process and procedure given it’s unlikely this will be the last arrest in this election given LBTH electoral history of recent times.
=> Couldn’t
Do be serious. No party is going to voluntarily damaged its own election prospects by getting involved or by making any avoidable statement about the status quo.
Curious Cat.
That’s why I’m thinking that the likelihood is that the two political parties with 38 year olds who have not been arrested are probably working out what they can say in terms of “My 38 year old candidate has not been arrested”.
After all it’s purely a statement of fact which to my mind wouldn’t breach the rules on what you can’t say at an election – so long as they don’t start slinging mud around.
“aren’t the electorate entitled to know BEFORE they vote?”
Which is why we need a free press, guaranteed by a written constitution US-style, and why we must fight against all the recent attempts by the Left to restrict this freedom – Levenson, etc.
You really think that having the press owned by people with very clear political agendas guarantees a free press?
Everyone has an agenda. “Free press” means that the state does not interfere, you can publish what you want, and if necessary defend it in court or be sued. With a plurality of views people can then come to their own conclusions. Levenson will have a chilling effect on journalists, as was intended. Technology now allows a level playing field. Anyone can publish to the entire planet for little cost.
=> mwebberukip
the Left to restrict this freedom – Levenson, etc.
Levenson exposed the dreadful sleaze – don’t knock it.
CC.
On a practical level, standing for two seats at the same time would mean an awful lot of campaigning to do. (And contrary to the cynical view that ‘we never see the candidate’ they do go out door knocking to drum up support.)
Bad enough for somebody who was attempting to stand in neighbouring seats. Almost impossible (I would have thought) for somebody who was putting their name forward for two widely distant seats.
Given that this relates to nomination papers – and as part of my mini-campaign to get people to actually READ the proper guidance(!) – it’s just occurred to me that it’s probably pertinent to have a good read of the Electoral Commission’s document
Local elections in England and Wales | Guidance for candidates and agents |
Part 1 of 6 – Can you stand for election?
see http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/141784/Part-1-Can-you-stand-for-election-LGEW.pdf
In particular the sections relating to qualifications and disqualifications which are
Qualifications
Qualification 1: being a registered local government elector
Qualification 2: occupying as owner or tenant any land or other premises in the local authority area
Qualification 3: your main or only place of work is in the local authority area
Qualification 4: living in the local authority area
Disqualifications
Disqualification 1: working for the local authority
Disqualification 2: politically restricted posts
Disqualification 3: bankruptcy restrictions or interim order
Peter Golds has just released a statement confirming it.
Here’s an article in the Wharf that clears up a few things:
http://www.wharf.co.uk/2014/05/conservatives-suspend-party-ca.html
Here is the actual statement from Peter Golds on the Jewel Islam issue.
Statement from Tower Hamlets Conservative Party
I understand questions have been raised with the police regarding Jewel Islam, a Conservative candidate for Mile End in the Tower Hamlets local elections, and that as a result Mr Islam was arrested yesterday, and has been bailed until June pending further enquiries
The questions raised concern Mr Islam’s historic personal financial circumstances, which may render him ineligible to stand under Section 80 section 1 part b of the Local Government Act 1972. The candidate’s nomination has been accepted by the council, and as yet no wrongdoing has been identified, and Mr Islam will appear on ballot papers.
In accordance with Conservative Party rules, Mr Islam has been suspended from the party until the police conclude their enquiries, and party activists will not be campaigning on his behalf until such time. The allegations relate solely to his business dealings affecting his eligibility to stand, and at this time Mr Jewel has been neither charged with, nor convicted of, any offence. For the record, Mr Islam did not indicate, when applying to be a candidate at this election, that there was any reason why he could not be validly nominated.
There is no suggestion of inappropriate behaviour in relation to the electoral process, with regard to nomination papers, postal votes or canvassing on the part of Mr Islam..
Councillor Peter Golds
Leader Tower Hamlets Conservative Group
‘m very pleased Jewel Islam’s arrest has nothing to do with voter fraud malarkey of any sort. Looks like his bankruptcy may have made him ineligible to stand as a candidate. #notaverynaughtyboy.
Well on the basis that he wasn’t working for a local authority or occupied a politically restricted post it did really only leave “bankruptcy restrictions or interim order” looking like the only relevant disqualification which might apply. It appears from the above that this might well be the case.
I guess the only question is was the question asked and answered truthfully when assessing his candidature for a seat.
One has to respect to Peter Golds for making an open and transparent statement which avoided embarrassment to the other two 38 year olds – and his party for taking what appears to be very appropriate action.
It’s also good to hear that this matter is nothing whatsoever to do with nomination papers, postal votes or canvassing behaviour.
I wonder why some “of our vibrant communities” seem to find it easier to LIE. If a form says “are you a bankrupt” and you LIE and say “no” is the risk this person takes driven by an overriding urge to serve the public as an elected official… or is it purely out of an insatiable eagerness to get one’s snout in the trough?
I think Tower Hamlets kids need to have special lessons on why it is a good thing to tell the truth even if that means sometimes you can’t have everything you want.
PS people used to be ashamed of being a bankrupt. #timeshavechanged
He wasn’t bankrupt. Will update post later, but he has a disqualifying motoring related conviction, I’m told.
Bankruptcy, which lasts just a year, does not disqualify anyone at local authority elections unless there is an attached order suggesting fraud or similar. However the GLA criteria – the last time I looked – does reject all bankruptcies.
Never noticed motoring offences disqualifying anyone – so its more than a 3 points job for going too fast.
Curious Cat.
Will you update us when there is something more concrete Ted? I’m only repeating what I’ve received from our Councillors. If its not accurate, my apologies.
Will try to update later. Been a bit busy!
[…] may not be well in Tower Hamlets Conservatives though as reported in the Evening Standard and Trial by Jeory during the […]