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 6th 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 6th 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 3rd
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).”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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
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
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
Robin
Tilbrook
Chairman,
The
English Democrats,
Quires
Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel:
01277 896000
Mobile
: 07778 553395
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 8th 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 5th 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
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
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
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>
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
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
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
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
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>
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
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
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:
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
Twitter:
@RobinTilbrook
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 8th 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 5th beating UKIP and beat
the Greens in all but 2 boroughs.
