SENTENCING COUNCIL WANTS TOUGHER SENTENCES AGAINST OPPONENTS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

SENTENCING COUNCIL WANTS TOUGHER SENTENCES AGAINST OPPONENTS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

I recently spotted that the anonymous Establishment entity calling themselves the “Sentencing Council” was proposing to dramatically increase the sentencing for those who infringe against the British State’s clamp down on free speech.  Here is the English Democrats’ submission on this matter:-

Dear Sir

The English Democrats submission to your consultation is firstly to observe that your Sentencing Council document fails to disclose details of the participating membership of the Council or their relevant interests, such as religion, ethnicity, national identity, racial group, sexuality, etc.  This cannot be right if there is be any transparency or openness in your “consultation”.  You also do not make clear how the members of the Council were appointed and whether there is any transparency in the appointments system.  Again this is another inappropriate lacuna in your document. 

Your consultation starts off with a series of dubious and unsupported assertions about the growth of “Hate Crime”.  So far as we are aware there are in fact no objective figures for the extent of the actual commission of “Hate Crimes”.  Instead what you report is merely the produce of encouraging the reporting of “Hate Crime” and recording all such reports however bogus they may actually be.

What is however known is that the politicisation of policing by the British Political Establishment continues apace in England, which of course is the only part of the “United Kingdom”, which instead of being self-governing, is directly ruled by the British Government.  This establishment is self-interestedly seeking to clamp down on the rising sense of English National Identity.  The results of the 2011 Census showed that 60.4% of the people of England regard their National Identity as “English only” and not “British”.  This was an unwelcome development for the British Political Establishment which has been increasingly directing police resources to clamp down on English free speech.  This is in sharp distinction to the traditional English liberty whose traditional attitude can be encapsulated in playground expression “sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me!” 

The already somewhat un-English and authoritarian legal restrictions on free speech are rendered not only logically incoherent but also nakedly political by the Aggravated Offence Provisions.

In the circumstances, whilst we have nothing to say about the more serious offences involving violence or the threat of violence, we strongly object to your unaccountable body seeking to impose stiffer sentences on those whose exercise of free speech is only treated as a crime if what is said offends Left/Liberal Internationalist/Globalist anti-nationalist/multi-culturalist, anti-English, politically correct opinion.  Conversely when patriots and nationalists are viciously smeared we are told that this must be accepted as legitimate expressions of Free Speech.  The lack of balance and equivalence between these approaches demonstrates that you are seeking to do nothing more than to further politicise the criminal justice system in support of the British Political Establishment rather than on the basis of rationality or dispassionate objectivity. 

Yours sincerely

(Here is a link to the entire document >>>  https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/6.4328_Public_Order_Offences_Guideleines_Consultation_web.pdf 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/6.4328_Public_Order_Offences_Guideleines_Consultation_web.pdf

What do you think?  Do put in your own submissions because the more people that object the more likely the Establishment is to drop the idea!  Here is their email address to complain to:- info@SentencingCouncil.gov.uk

MAY 2018 ENGLISH LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS

MAY 2018 ENGLISH LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS?

So what have we learnt as a result of the English 2018 local elections? Are they a political “watershed” milestone in English politics?

The first thing to note was that so far as the Labour Party was concerned, despite wildly optimistic predictions from the ideological Left and others, like Sadiq Khan, Labour only did well in areas where there was either a preponderance of politically correct Middle Class, mostly State employees, often with non-traditional value lifestyles, or in areas heavily dependent of welfare benefits, or where “ethnic minority” immigrant populations have become dominant. Labour is continuing on its path of becoming the multiculturalist “Rainbow” Party!

Elsewhere in England, Labour made very little progress.  As Prof Matthew Goodwin of Kent University and Prof John Denham of Winchester University and also the English Labour Network were correctly predicting that, in all the areas where people still predominantly identify themselves as being “English”, under its current policies (where Labour politicians can barely mention England or the English), any hopes of a Labour breakthrough were doomed.  This has proved to be absolutely correct. 

See: John Denham: Why does our Labour Party refuse to talk about England? >>>> https://labourlist.org/2018/04/john-denham-why-does-our-labour-party-refuse-to-talk-about-england/

And: Why Labour Needs An English Manifesto >>>> https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-manifesto_uk_5a7d8cd3e4b044b3821c372f

Such progress as Labour did make can be explained either: 1/ by a collapse of the Green vote, (most of whose voters went back to Labour except for where the “Progressive Alliance" was effective; for instance in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, where 29 seats changed hands.  Almost all of these were lost by the Conservatives, and they all went to the "Progressive Alliance" of Liberal Democrats and Greens.  This success has led to some support from Labour MPs for Labour to join it >>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/07/labour-mps-revive-campaign-for-progressive-alliance, ;

Or 2/ by the third of former UKIP voters who appear to have voted Labour. 

These former UKIP voters have probably gone back to Labour on a conditional basis thinking that Labour is still committed to its General Election promises of ensuring a full Brexit.

However if Labour’s Parliamentary Party continues on its trajectory to become more Remain supporting and undermining of Brexit, this vote may easily be switched next time to parties that are genuinely in support of leaving the European Union.  It would appear that Labour’s deceitfulness and disingenuous on the Brexit question has to some extent worked – so far!

So far as the Conservatives are concerned, they are projecting this result as a great success, given that it was mid-term into a Government.  However it seems obvious from a look at the statistics that in fact their success, such as it was, was dependant on both hanging onto their own vote and also recruiting an average two-thirds of the former UKIP vote. This means that their continued success is very dependent on their Government maintaining a reputation for working towards leaving the EU.  This is however a Government which will have had to have achieved Brexit by the time of the next General Election. If they have failed to deliver a satisfactory Brexit by then, this result contains a strong hint of severe troubles to come for the Conservative and Unionist Party!

The result also does show that the Conservative leadership have again successfully used their long-standing tactic (also true of the majority of “Conservative” MPs, including Theresa May) of being dishonest and disingenuous by pretending to be Eurosceptics.  It is worth remembering that when the decision time came in the EU referendum they came out as Europhile “Remainers”.  If their true position has become clear, to those that voted Conservative this time, by the next election then I would say “woe betide” the Conservative Party - if there is then a credible alternative. 

The leaders of both Labour and the Conservative Party, Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, are clearly both liabilities for their parties, not only personally but also through political ideology.  If either Party were to exchange their current Leader with someone more in tune with real mainstream opinion in England, then their rivals would be in serious trouble come the next General Election.

So far as UKIP leadership is concerned the results were disastrous.  I understand, but didn’t hear her say it, that their Suzanne Evans MEP has said that the results show that “UKIP is over”. 

In my view, UKIP’s Party members and voters have done England a tremendous service in forcing Cameron to give us the EU Referendum and helping to ensure that it was won for Brexit. 

It was always going to be difficult for UKIP to adapt itself, given the disagreements amongst its members and supporters on most other issues other than wanting to come out of the EU, UKIP’s Leadership troubles have of course also contributed dramatically to breakup of UKIP support.  Having blocked UKIP branches from supporting a democratic Brexit voice for England with a 'Brexit' English First Minister they have failed their membership by gifting to the Conservatives the Eurosceptic position.

What these election results show however is that, if Brexit is not satisfactorily delivered by the Conservatives, and English interests continue to be ignored by both Labour and the Conservatives then there is a crying need for the English Nation to have a political party which will speak up for us. 

UKIP leadership has missed its English democratic chance but UKIP's membership does have a natural place to go if they want to! They still can make their voices heard above a corrupt and out of touch British "Remainer" elite.

I, of course, think that English voice will be only found in the English Democrats.  In the coming months, I and other English Democrat activists, will be working to encourage over to our Cause of open English nationalism, all those English voters who care about England’s future, to come over to us so that will be able to effectively represent the English Nation. My message is:- Don't give up your political voice, Don't allow yourself to become a ' sad returner' to the tired and old LibLabCon political group. England needs you! The English Democrats are here for you!

As Helen Lewis, the Deputy Editor of the New Statesman (aka Helen Lewis-Hasteley and married to Jonathan Hayes the Digital Editor of the Guardian) said on BBC Radio 4 on the 4^th May just before the 9.00 o’clock News, the only way for UKIP to have been able to come back would have been as an English nationalist party.  Being a Labour "Remoaner", she of course thought that would be “ugly”.   I will leave you to imagine what I think of that!

14,547 first preference votes and uncounted tens of thousands of second preference votes!

Our PRESS RELEASE on the results in South Yorkshire:-

David Allen, the English Democrats’ Candidate for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election

David Allen says:- “I was delighted to represent the rising force of English nationalism in the South Yorkshire Mayoral election under the slogan of “English Democrats:- A Parliament for England!” With a miniscule campaign budget we got 14,547 first preference votes and uncounted tens of thousands of second preference votes.  I would like to thank all those who voted for the English Democrats and voted for an English Parliament in this election.”

David continued:- “The British Political Establishment parties, had the benefit, not only of their vast resources, but also quite a lot of their supporters turning out for local elections based on the self-interested leafleting and canvassing work of their local election candidates.”

David said:- “The good news for those who opposed the pro EU “Regionalists” candidates in Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the EU “Regionalist” so-called “Yorkshire” Party, is that in a few month’s time, we are likely to have a re-run of the South Yorkshire Mayoral election.  This because South Yorkshire Police have already confirmed that they are investigating Dan Jarvis for the electoral fraud offence of giving a false address in his nomination forms.”

David continued:-  “Mr Jarvis has claimed that he did this for personal security reasons, but the law is clear that upon conviction such an approach leaves his election as “void” and would also lead to him being disqualified from public office for five years.”  

David said:- “So in a few months time we may also have a parliamentary by-election in Barnsley Central, as well as a re-run of the South Yorkshire Mayoral election.  This will be at a time when there are no other elections and so it will be far more of a level playing field between the English Democrats and the British Political Establishment Parties.”

David concluded:- “I am therefore looking forward to the next election and I hope that all those that voted English Democrats their first or second preference this time round will give me first preference next time and put the English Cause front and centre in South Yorkshire politics!”

BBC refuses to report biggest story in South Yorkshire Mayoral Election – to protect Labour candidate!

BBC refuses to report biggest story in South Yorkshire Mayoral Election – to protect Labour candidate!

 

There are two parts to this story.

 

First the Labour candidate in the biggest election this year has an address which does not exist as his home address in his nomination papers. This means that if he is elected then that result is voidable as having a false address in his nomination forms is the offence of "Corrupt Practice". We have reported this to the Police who have confirmed that "South Yorkshire Police is investigati(ng) an allegation of electoral fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections"

 

Second we have here a classic “Electoral Fraud” story of the type that BBC Sheffield so eagerly ran when it was alleged that Paul Nuttall of UKIP had committed a nearly identical election fraud as is alleged in this case.  That was in the Stoke By-election, so it is not even directly related to either Sheffield or South Yorkshire! Now however the local BBC are trying to protect a Labour MP from adverse publicity which might, as Labour put it in Mr Nuttall’s case, “call into question" Mr Jarvis “fitness for office”!

 

There is no credible basis for The BBC's excuse of saying that giving this story the proper level of publicity would put Mr Jarvis under risk of attack, especially as it is his failure to give his home address which is the basis for him being investigated by South Yorkshire police!  So how would anyone know his address?

 

Here is a link to the Statement of Persons nominated where you can see Dan Jarvis' false address >>> https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Statement-of-Persons-Nominated.pdf

 

There is no Marsham Road in London.

So this is what the charge-sheet against Dan Jarvis MP and/or his agent Paul Nicholson might look like:-

 

CONTRARY TO SECTIONS 3 AND 6 OF THE FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING ACT 1981

Details of Offence on or before 6^th April 2018 at the offices of Sheffield City Council in the County of South Yorkshire used an instrument, namely a local government election nomination form relating to Dan Jarvis which was and which they knew or believed to be false with the intention of inducing the Returning Officer, Dr Dave Smith, to accept it as genuine and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or another person’s prejudice.

(Upon conviction an indictment of this offence which is called the "Misuse of a Statutory Instrument”, the person convicted may be sentenced up to 10 years imprisonment.)

CONTRARY TO SECTION 65A(1)(A) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983

On or before 6^th April 2018 in the offices of Sheffield City Council in South Yorkshire Dan Jarvis or his Election Agent caused or permitted to be included in a document, namely a local government election nomination form relating to a candidate stated to be Dan Jarvis which was delivered or otherwise furnished to Dr Dave Smith the returning officer for use in connection with the Sheffield City Regional election in South Yorkshire to be held on 3^rd May 2018 a statement of the home address of the said candidate, which you knew to be false.

(This offence is labelled a “Corrupt Practice” and the successful election of a candidate found guilty (whether personally or by his agent) of a “Corrupt Practice” is void and anyone found personally guilty of a Corrupt Practice is prohibited from holding any elected office for a period of five years.)

 

So you can see that the probable minimum outcome of the investigation of this case would be that Dan Jarvis’ election would be declared void. He may also be disqualified from office for five years.  It is therefore absurd that the BBC is refusing to report a police investigation which will probably result in this election result being declared void.

 

The general location of what is probably Mr Jarvis’s real address can quite easily be found on the Barnsley Council’s website where the location of his home address is given on the published Notice of Persons Nominated for Election as the MP for Barnsley Central here >>> https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/media/5855/statement-of-persons-nominated-barnsley-central.pdf.

 

I have therefore specifically warned BBC Sheffield that unless the BBC does its job and properly reports this issue then I shall be complaining to OFCOM over clear breaches of the “Ofcom Broadcasting Code”, Sections are 5, 6 and 7.  They have not done so and so I shall be complaining.

 

In Section 5 in breach as follows:-

 

Section Five:
Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and
Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions
(Relevant legislation includes, in particular, sections 319(2)(c) and (d), 319(8) and
section 320 of the Communications Act 2003, the BBC Charter and Agreement, and
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.)
Principles
To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy 
and presented with due impartiality.
To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are
complied with.
Rules
Meaning of “due impartiality”:
“Due” is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself
means not favouring one side over another. “Due” means adequate or appropriate
to the subject and nature of the programme. So “due impartiality” does not mean an
equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every
facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may
vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the
likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content
and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm
and Offence of the Code, is important.
Due impartiality and due accuracy in news 
5.1
News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented
with due impartiality.
5.2
Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected
on air quickly (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, corrected quickly). Corrections
should be appropriately scheduled (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, appropriately
signaled to viewers).” 

The BBC are failing to report views and failing to act with due impartiality and are ignoring the requirement to report with due accuracy and are excluding the reporting of news because of their biased views and opinions

 

“5.5
Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters
relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person
providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or
over a series of programmes taken as a whole. 
Meaning of “series of programmes taken as a whole”: 
This means more than one programme in the same service, editorially linked, dealing
with the same or related issues within an appropriate period and aimed at a like
audience. A series can include, for example, a strand, or two programmes (such as a
drama and a debate about the drama) or a ‘cluster’ or ‘season’ of programmes on the
same subject.”

 

This is a matter of political controversy and so their duty of due impartiality applies.

 

“5.7
Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with
due weight over appropriate timeframes.”

 

They are failing to present relevant views and facts at all.

“5.8
Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question
the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.”

They are not declaring their personal interests as Labour supporters and not allowing adequate representation of alternative viewpoints.

 

“5.12
In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and
major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of
significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme
or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be
misrepresented.”

They were no doubt asked by Labour or by their candidate not to report this story and by agreeing not to do so they are complicit in giving undue prominence to their views and opinions.

 

Section 6 the BBC appear to be in wholesale breach of.  Not only in this matter but also in failing to give equal treatment to the candidates in the South Yorkshire Mayoral election and significantly the direct failure of their reports to comply with Section 6.10, which requires that:-

 

“Any constituency or electoral area report or discussion after the close of

nominations must include a list of all candidates standing, giving first names,

surnames and the name of the party they represent or, if they are standing

independently, the fact that they are an independent candidate. This must

be conveyed in sound and/or vision. Where a constituency report on a radio

service is repeated on several occasions in the same day, the full list need

only be broadcast on one occasion. If, in subsequent repeats on that day, the

constituency report does not give the full list of candidates, the audience should

be directed to an appropriate website or other information source listing all

candidates and giving the information set out above.”

 

Look North’s BBC’s Evening News item from 6.30 -7.00 p.m. earlier last week carried a report by Look North’s News Political Editor, Mr James Vincent on the powers of the role of the new South Yorkshire Mayor.  This was in the proposed Mayoral office and he commented "nice view but no powers"!

 

There was then a discussion in the BBC studio amongst Look North’s in-house staff  commentators, Ms Amy Garcia and Mr Harry Gration, who were complaining about the cost of the election address booklet and of the election generally.

 

This was the second or third occasion that Look North has referred to the South Yorkshire Mayoral elections in which they only referred viewers, who wanted more information, to the official election website but did not spell out at all the names or the parties of the candidates in the election.

(The link to the code is here >>>  https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/100103/broadcast-code-april-2017.pdf

 

The correspondence on this matter which sets out both issues is below, in chronological order:-

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
To: robintilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 7:39 pm
Subject: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate 

 

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate

In the Statement of Persons Nominated as a candidate in the election, Dan Jarvis has the non-existent address in London of 76 Marsham Road.  No postcode is provided.  Whereas there is a 76 Marsham Road in Kings Heath, Birmingham, there is none in London.  

It therefore seems that on his nomination paper Mr Jarvis has made a declaration that his address is 76 Marsham Road, London - clearly a false declaration and so it seems that he has committed an electoral fraud, which upon conviction would probably get him disqualified from holding elected office, not only as Mayor, but also as an MP!

Here is the Electoral Commission Guidance set out in:-

Guidance for candidates and agents Part 2b of 6 – Standing as a party candidate.   April 2017 (updated December 2017.

The relevant part of the Guidance states:-

“Home address form 1.12

The home address form must state your home address in full. If you do not want your address to be made public and to appear on the ballot paper, you must make a statement to this effect on the home address form and give the name of the constituency in which your home address is situated or, if you

live outside the UK, the name of the country in which you reside.

1.13

Your home address:

• must be completed in full

• must not contain abbreviations

• must be your current home address

• must not be a business address (unless you run a business from your home)

1.14

Your address does not need to be in the constituency in which you intend to stand.”

 

76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR does however exist and that is Great Minster House which is a Barrett luxury development whose website address can be found here >>> https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/h634701-great-minster-house/ .  This is a new development in which Right Move shows that a 2 bedroomed flat is currently for sale at £2,650,000! (Click here >>>  http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-48448119.html .  

Also in the Mayoral Booklet for Election Addresses Mr Jarvis has given his address as 200 Duke Street, S2 5QQ, Sheffield, which is not only not a residential address but is also not really a proper address at all.  It is actually the side of the Labour Party’s Sheffield office!  

The proper address of Labour’s office is given by Mr Jarvis’ Election Agent, Mr Paul Nicholson, who gives his address as the proper address Labour’s Sheffield Headquarters of Talbot Street, S2 2TG. 

So the two addresses that Mr Jarvis has given in his paperwork for this important election are both addresses that he neither lives at nor works at!

In the Stoke By-election Labour said:-  “Mr Nuttall’s use of an empty house as his address raised questions about his fitness for public office”! 

The English Democrats take the view that if Labour felt that it was proper to report Mr Nuttall to the Police when the address given by him was both a real one and one which he presumably had leased then in this worse case the matter should be reported to the police and so we have done so.

David Allen, the English Democrats’ candidate for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election said:-  “I always knew that Dan Jarvis MP was a Notts man with no real connections with Yorkshire at all, but now it appears that he cannot even give a proper address for his candidacy. 

This can only mislead electors in South Yorkshire into wrongly thinking that Dan Jarvis is someone with roots here in Yorkshire.”

David continued:-  “Furthermore if Dan Jarvis has committed an electoral fraud offence then it could be a wasted vote for Labour supporters to vote for him when he could soon be disqualified.  

The honourable thing for Mr Jarvis to do now would be to stand down from this election.  If he follows this advice it will be interesting to see whom he recommends his supporters to vote for.  I suspect it will be the equally anti-English Regionalist Yorkshire Party, which, just like Dan Jarvis, is not campaigning for the traditional Yorkshire at all, but for the EU Yorkshire & Humber Region which excludes parts of traditional Yorkshire and includes parts of traditional North Lincolnshire and whose main effect is to begin the break-up of England”

 

David Allen

St Edmunds House

Anchorage Lane

Doncaster

South Yorkshire  

DN5 8DT  

Tel: 01302 781347

Mobile: 07450 098964 

Email: Davidsallen64@gmail.com

 

 

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats,

Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP

Tel: 01277 896000

Mobile : 07778 553395

Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/

Twitter: @ RobinTilbrook

Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org

Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat

Supporting VotetoLeave.EU

Key facts about the English Democrats

The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8^th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties and in the 2017 Greater Manchester Mayoral election we came 5^th beating UKIP and beat the Greens in all but 2 boroughs.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>
To: robintilbrook < robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 4:56 pm
Subject: FW: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as South Yorkshire Mayoral Candidate 

Hi Robin,

 

I can’t find the mayoral booklet for election addresses, I’m not sure it’s been made public yet. Do you have a copy?

Can you scan a page and send it me?

Thanks,

 

Liz

 

Liz Roberts

POLITICAL REPORTER

BBC SHEFFIELD

Mob: 07711 348956

 

 

 

 

----Original Message-----
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 6:13 pm
Subject: Re: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as South Yorkshire Mayoral Candidate 

Liz

 

Enclosed is a picture of Jarvis’ entry in the booklet. I’ve also included a picture of the statement of nominations which has incorrect and incomplete London address too. If you need a better picture please let me know.

 

Regards 

 

David Allen 

 

 

 

From: David Allen [mailto:davidsallen64@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 April 2018 18:54
To: Liz Roberts; robintilbrook
Subject: Fwd: Your Email 13/4/18

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: STEPHEN LEACH < Stephen.Leach@southyorks.pnn.police.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 at 18:24
Subject: Your Email 13/4/18
To: davidsallen64@gmail.com < davidsallen64@gmail.com>

 

Good afternoon

 

I can confirm that South Yorkshire Police is investigation an allegation of electoral fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections.

 

Regards

 

DI Steve Leach

SYP Cyber Crime

Stephen.leach@southyorkshire.pnn.police.uk

 

SYP Alerts offers information about local policing issues by text, email or voice message. Sign-up now at www.sypalerts.co.uk #SignMeUp

 

----Original Message-----
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: James Vincent <james.vincent@bbc.co.uk>; Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; Tim Smith-Leeds <tim.smith@bbc.co.uk>; robintilbrook <RobinTilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: Your Email 13/4/18 

 

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 10:52, Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: 

Hi David,

 

We’ve decided we won’t be running the story. This is due to the safety risk posed to Dan Jarvis and his family.

 

Liz

 

Liz Roberts

POLITICAL REPORTER

BBC SHEFFIELD

Mob: 07711 348956

 

Hi Liz

 

Thanks for your message.

 

I am sorry to say I am not surprised. I suspect the real reason is more likely the political risk to what appears to be a BBC preferred candidate.

 

I fail to see how reporting him being investigated for electoral fraud constitutes a compromise to his or his family’s safety, bearing in mind his allegedly bogus London address is a matter of public record.

 

Each of the other candidates have had their home addresses published and perhaps myself and my family the most likely to be safety compromised amongst them.

 

Actions like this do nothing to dispel the growing belief that the BBC is ‘The Guardian’ on air and has abandoned any pretence of balance, particularly since BREXIT.

 

I am sorry you have been given the dirty job of being the messenger when it was you who dared to pick up the story in the first place.

 

This complaint is in no way directed at you personally.

 

Regards 

 

From: David Allen [mailto:davidsallen64@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 April 2018 15:51
To: Liz Roberts; robintilbrook
Subject: Dan Jarvis

 

Liz,

 

Further to your statement regarding the alleged compromise of the Jarvis family safety.If you would be so kind would you tell me , who told you this and the reasons they gave?

 

Regards

 

 

------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 16:16
Subject: RE: Dan Jarvis
To: David Allen < davidsallen64@gmail.com> 

 

David,

 

I’m not prepared to go into the details, but we have looked into this extensively and come to the conclusion that there would be a genuine and increased risk to Dan Jarvis and possibly his family if we were to broadcast anything that might lead to his address being discovered.  I’m sure you are aware that these are difficult times in terms of the security of elected MPs, and especially so for someone like Mr Jarvis who is so publicly associated with our armed forces.   Please be reassured that this decision was taken after discussion with the management team at BBC Radio Sheffield and after a great deal of thought.

 

Liz

 

Liz Roberts

POLITICAL REPORTER

BBC SHEFFIELD

Mob: 07711 348956

 

 

 

----Original Message-----
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; robintilbrook <RobinTilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 6:05 pm
Subject: Re: Dan Jarvis 

Liz,

 

Thank you for you reply.

 

Please can you identify, by name and position, the members of the management team at BBC Radio Sheffield responsible for making this decision.

 

Regards

 

David Allen

 

 

 

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 at 09:27, Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: 

David,

 

The managing editor is Katrina Bunker, the Assistant Editor is Mike Woodcock.

 

But if you’d like to make a complaint you can do so here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

 

Liz

 

Liz Roberts

POLITICAL REPORTER

BBC SHEFFIELD

Mob: 07711 348956

 

I await your response to this complaint.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely

 

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats,

Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP

Tel: 01277 896000

Mobile : 07778 553395

Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/

Twitter: @RobinTilbrook

Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org

Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat

Supporting VotetoLeave.EU

Key facts about the English Democrats

The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8^th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties and in the 2017 Greater Manchester Mayoral election we came 5^th beating UKIP and beat the Greens in all but 2 boroughs.