Also in the news

[Kopfkino]

24 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

With all the fever over Tory & Labour shenanigans over Brexit, easy to forget that the EU has a big say in what happens: 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/11/eu-view-of-tory-leadership-candidates-deeply-critical-say-sources

 

To judge from this, if the Govt doesn't collapse by October, a No Deal Brexit might well be on the cards, whether we want it or not....

 

"“People in Brussels are fed up that the political class in the UK has gone a little bit crazy,” Jean-Claude Piris, a former head of the European council’s legal service said. British politicians seemed to have gone “on holiday”, since gaining the extension, he added".

 

"The idea of Boris Johnson in the European council is probably quite abhorrent to some EU leaders,” an EU source said. “Boris is known in foreign policy circles, certainly not respected. He’s also seen as part of a wider Trump world and no one wants that.”

The EU’s most senior civil servant, Martin Selmayr, once described a Johnson premiership as a “horror scenario”, classing him with Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump".

 

"For me it is very clear the odds of no-deal Brexit are more than half and clearly if Boris Johnson becomes prime minister the odds will go up again,” said Philippe Lamberts, a Belgian MEP and member of the European parliament’s Brexit steering group."

 

"Many in the EU would support an extension for what is known in Brussels as “a democratic event”, meaning a general election or a second referendum. Without that, Piris thinks EU leaders could say no to a further extension. “But even if they say yes. What would happen? There is an inability to solve this question in the House of Commons.”

You say that as if people haven't forgot the EU have a say since 2016.

 

Given TM says she won't step aside until someone gains the confidence of the house, we're heading for an election anyway. Tbf I'm pretty sure Boris is readying for an election. 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If that were true, there wouldn't be such a clamour by some folks to scrap the licence fee in the first place. I daresay there would be less complaints from those complaining if the Beeb fed them stories and other stuff that they agreed with.

The reason why there is a clamour (if you can call it that) to scrap the license fee is because it is an anachronism from the days when the BBC were the sole broadcaster. It is now outdated, and unfair on other broadcasters. I like a lot of the BBC's output, and would quite happily pay a subscription to watch/listen to the content you obviously feel we all need to see/hear. But if others don't agree, that should be their choice. Are you not pro-choice?

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

You say that as if people haven't forgot the EU have a say since 2016.

 

Given TM says she won't step aside until someone gains the confidence of the house, we're heading for an election anyway. Tbf I'm pretty sure Boris is readying for an election. 

 

True. Easy to get drawn into the UK media focus on domestic politics, though. Useful reminder, articles like that, though nothing conclusive.

 

TM hasn't necessarily said that she'll wait for a confidence vote, has she? Just that she has to be able to tell the Queen that the new Tory leader will be able to command a majority?

It would cause yet more public outrage if she were to hang on, surely? A bit awkward for her, though, if she knows that the new Govt might lose a confidence vote.... 

 

What you say about Boris is what I concluded the other day - took a long time to click with me.

Before, I couldn't work out why he was giving hostages to fortune, promising we'd leave in October, Deal or No Deal, when an early Deal looks near impossible and Parliament would surely vote down No Deal.

 

Then it clicked: I reckon he's saying that because he expects there to be an election before October, an election that he thinks he can win, with his promise of leaving in October, Deal or No Deal, garnished with lots of "charisma", rhetoric & bluster.

Sadly, I've a horrible feeling that he might be right. With Labour & Lib Dems both on 20%-28% of the vote & no apparent prospect of Labour shifting position before its conference, Boris might only need to claw back 5%-10% of the Hard Brexit vote from Farage to win a Tory majority under FPTP.....if you factor in May's unpopularity, Boris' popularity among his target voters & an under-informed public either wanting Brexit done at any cost or just wanting the issue dealt with, even if they don't favour No Deal..... 

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

The reason why there is a clamour (if you can call it that) to scrap the license fee is because it is an anachronism from the days when the BBC were the sole broadcaster. It is now outdated, and unfair on other broadcasters. I like a lot of the BBC's output, and would quite happily pay a subscription to watch/listen to the content you obviously feel we all need to see/hear. But if others don't agree, that should be their choice. Are you not pro-choice?

 

It's not just a case of being pro or anti-choice, though, is it?

 

It's about where we draw the choice / no choice line.

 

Various people would like the choice not to fund nuclear weapons, benefits, the police, NHS abortions, public education/health etc. Through parliament, we decide which things we must all fund as a democratic national society.

So far, that has included the BBC, nuclear weapons, benefits etc. Of course, there's nothing stopping particular politicians advocating an end to funding for any of those - or for public payments to be voluntary....

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

The reason why there is a clamour (if you can call it that) to scrap the license fee is because it is an anachronism from the days when the BBC were the sole broadcaster. It is now outdated, and unfair on other broadcasters. I like a lot of the BBC's output, and would quite happily pay a subscription to watch/listen to the content you obviously feel we all need to see/hear. But if others don't agree, that should be their choice. Are you not pro-choice?

If there other revenue taxable streams as Kopf suggests for funding the BBC, then absolutely it should be considered an anachronism and considered accordingly.

 

However, I'll repeat myself and say that yes, I think that there should be one public broadcastable source of information and news that is sourced from obligatory taxed public payments in the same way other public services are and available for all to watch and listen to, for the reason that truthful information should be available whether people agree with it or not. People don't tend to fund things they don't agree with, after all, and while I'm sure the Beeb has many supporters right now as you say, it would only take the wrong kind of (truthful) story that people don't want to hear to turn that on its head.

 

Perhaps that doesn't make me pro-choice, but then I guess I and others aren't pro-choice when it comes to funding the NHS and other public institutions of that type either (and timely information, education and knowledge is as valuable as good health, defending the realm or whatever else public money is spent on) - and if you make such arguments about the Beeb you can then extend it to every single public institution. At that point, why have taxes or any kind of taxed society at all?

 

Maybe that's a little slippery slope fallacy, but whatever.

[Vince Vega]

50 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

You may well be right ...   I’m only using Norton as an example ...    is Lineker THAT important to the show that he commands such a large fee ...   I think not.   I know he does other things for the beeb but they should be looked at separately imo.   Norton on the other hand to me does justify his salary as he is his show and makes it what it is ..

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, although someone does, else why would he be paid that much? This issue keeps raising it's head, as it was not that long ago that Chris Evans was under the spotlight over pay, which forced him to quit the BBC - both TV and Radio.  The reason I commented on your choice of Graham Norton is the fact that it isn't a comparable example, due to the So TV situation.  If we could pick through those payments and work our what his share is, and add that to his £600K, we might see that Mr Lineker's slice is not so bad.

 

As the BBC is licence fee funded, I'm sure this will keep cropping up and if Lineker goes, it will be someone else who will be the villain for being grossly overpaid.  Of course, this won't happen with commercial TV, as we'll never know what they earn and won't give a monkey's as we're not paying for it.   

[Guest]

I like the BBC, think they do a great job.

 

Should be funded fully through income tax. 

 

Don't understand the "choice" argument. The UK don't force you to watch the BBC, they give you a choice.

 

BBC make some great programmes. It's true that they don't make so many as before but then again they don't have the same amount of money (comparatively). They do make some programmes and target some sectors of the UK who wouldn't get made or programmes made for them. It's every important.

 

Not sure why people are singling out the nation's broadcaster when they pay for nuclear weapons or defense that many people are not happy with.

 

With regards the salaries of BBC employees, I do think that there is a good argument there. Gary shouldn't be paid that much and neither should any of the people that were in that image. As someone said Match of the day could really be headed by anyone, anyone can read the news. I think the BBC should actually make it policy to find these new stars and give them the roles on a low salary before letting them go to commercial stations, if they want more pay. Even people like Graham Norton, Why not? The BBC imo aren't there for popularity competitions. Norton can be shown on another channel and paid by them.

 

Of course it's the public's fault for being celebrity addicts - amazing that someone playing music on a radio show or a morning TV presenter should actually earn much more than a living wage. Anyone can do it.

 

The BBC could save a lot of money for creating new programmes by not paying celebrities to do their shows.

 

And all of those complaining would complain even more if they had to pay for everything they watched at the price decided by private foreign owned TV channel owners - still most of them probably illegally download and stream.

 

I hate adverts (including the BBCs) during my programmes.

Edited 11 June 2019 by Guest

[WigstonWanderer]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The logic comes from avoiding red tape, ensuring good take-up & electoral politics:

 

- Red tape: It's much cheaper to administer "universal benefits" (e.g. licences paid to all pensioners) than means-tested benefits (working out who's poor enough to need it etc.). Mind you, paying it to everyone who gets pension credit sounds simple enough to administer......if all poorer pensioners are willing and able to claim pension credit....

 

- Ensuring good take-up: A lot of older people are too proud to apply for "charity hand-outs" & a lot more would find it impossible or massively stressful. Of pensioners poor enough to be eligible for pension credit, 40% don't claim it!

 

- Electoral politics: Giving all over-75s free TV licences made it more acceptable to the electorate. It meant that those who weren't poor didn't see it as the govt giving hand-outs to "lazy scroungers who only had themselves to blame for being skint - if they'd worked hard like me, they wouldn't need it....I earned every penny I've got and now look at the commies in Govt giving taxpayers' money to lazy scroungers" (e.g. Daily Mail/Express/Sun readers)

 

 

 

My parents weren't ridiculously wealthy but they owned their own home and had good pensions, so they shared your view about comfortably-off pensioners getting the licence, Nick. However, once my Dad was a 90-year-old widower no longer physically or mentally capable of leaving home alone, the TV became more crucial to avoid isolation. Also, he had been a highly intelligent man well capable of complex organisation. But by 90, he would not have been able to handle paying for a licence (Parkinson's gave him mild dementia & left him physically incapable of writing his name). Fortunately, although I didn't live nearby, he was able to give me power of attorney to handle his financial affairs - but not everyone has someone available to do that or to help out as Swan & others help his neighbour....they'll be some of the people who end up as String fellow describes.

 

So, on the one hand, there are poorer pensioners who would end up turning down the heating or eating less to afford a TV licence, perhaps the only thing that makes their isolation bearable.....because they're too proud or incapable of claiming pension credit. On the other, better-off pensioners can also suddenly become poorer (e.g. care costs) or less capable - and TV can become much more important to them.

 

Of course, this is also a deliberate right-wing govt/media attack on the BBC, a potential media critic of influence. There are plenty of arguments for & against how the BBC is run and funded. But it is a fact that the govt has massively slashed its budget. Some cuts have already happened (closure of BBC3 & other channels, pay cuts etc.). The BBC had a choice between (a) funding TV licences for all pensioners by making further massive cuts, closing channels etc.; (b) limiting such drastic cuts by not funding free TV licences for wealthier pensioners - and putting the ball back in the govt's court, where it should be. It was a govt decision to fund free TV licences - and govt funded it before. They've decided, in effect, to stop funding those free licences but to try to make the BBC take the blame - much as it does with cuts to council budgets leading to councils being blamed for cuts in local services.

 

Either the BBC starts giving loads of its budget to pensioners & damages its service, or it risks public blame by refusing to take over all the govt funding. Either way, the Govt & right-wing media get to damage the reputation of an important national institution - and one capable of influential criticism of govts of every persuasion. Some will be delighted at that. But they won't be happy until this country is turned into a stinking dungheap presided over by some True Brit Hitler in a union jack waistcoat, crushing and blaming working people, the poor and immigrants, while extra cash goes to the super-wealthy whose interests this govt & its lickspittle newspapers serve.

Well said sir!

 

We get similar here in Aus. ABC takes loads of rightist criticism, whilst Foxtel has a seemingly endless array of shock jocks spewing out right wing propaganda, climate change denial, etc.

Edited 11 June 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

I like the BBC, think they do a great job.

 

Should be funded fully through income tax. 

 

Don't understand the "choice" argument. The UK don't force you to watch the BBC, they give you a choice.

 

BBC make some great programmes. It's true that they don't make so many as before but then again they don't have the same amount of money (comparatively). They do make some programmes and target some sectors of the UK who wouldn't get made or programmes made for them. It's every important.

 

Not sure why people are singling out the nation's broadcaster when they pay for nuclear weapons or defense that many people are not happy with.

 

With regards the salaries of BBC employees, I do think that there is a good argument there. Gary shouldn't be paid that much and neither should any of the people that were in that image. As someone said Match of the day could really be headed by anyone, anyone can read the news. I think the BBC should actually make it policy to find these new stars and give them the roles on a low salary before letting them go to commercial stations, if they want more pay. Even people like Graham Norton, Why not? The BBC imo aren't there for popularity competitions. Norton can be shown on another channel and paid by them.

 

Of course it's the public's fault for being celebrity addicts - amazing that someone playing music on a radio show or a morning TV presenter should actually earn much more than a living wage. Anyone can do it.

 

The BBC could save a lot of money for creating new programmes by not paying celebrities to do their shows.

 

And all of those complaining would complain even more if they had to pay for everything they watched at the price decided by private foreign owned TV channel owners - still most of them probably illegally download and stream.

 

I hate adverts (including the BBCs) during my programmes.

They don't give you a choice of not paying for it if you don't want to watch it. You still have to pay for even if you own a tv that's not plugged into an aerial.

They could have if they charged a subscription like sky do. At the moment their budget is set by what is deemed acceptable to pay. If they charged £5000 a year, no-one would watch the tv.

 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

They don't give you a choice of not paying for it if you don't want to watch it. You still have to pay for even if you own a tv that's not plugged into an aerial.

They could have if they charged a subscription like sky do. At the moment their budget is set by what is deemed acceptable to pay. If they charged £5000 a year, no-one would watch the tv.

 

 

You don't get a choice as to what the government do with any of your taxes. Do you complain about everything you don't want it spent on?

 

The BBC are so much more than a supplier of tv programmes - not sure how you can compare them to SKY.

 

I presume though that you've never watched a match of the day or an FA cup final on the BBC - or the olympics or the news. You don't listen to the radio or read any BBC web site info - certainly not the LCFC related ones that you see on this site. And even if you don't and haven't then surely you understand the importance of a serious nation having its own broadcaster or maybe you'd be happy if Russia bought out the media services in the UK and just produced their programmes for you to watch.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

 

You don't get a choice as to what the government do with any of your taxes. Do you complain about everything you don't want it spent on?

 

The BBC are so much more than a supplier of tv programmes - not sure how you can compare them to SKY.

 

I presume though that you've never watched a match of the day or an FA cup final on the BBC - or the olympics or the news. You don't listen to the radio or read any BBC web site info - certainly not the LCFC related ones that you see on this site. And even if you don't and haven't then surely you understand the importance of a serious nation having its own broadcaster or maybe you'd be happy if Russia bought out the media services in the UK and just produced their programmes for you to watch.

You live in France don't you @FIF? How does it work over there if you want to watch/listen to BBC content?

[Buce]

Boris Johnson allowed arms sales to Saudis after Yemen bombing

 

Tory leadership frontrunner Boris Johnson recommended that the UK allow Saudi Arabia to buy British bomb parts expected to be deployed in Yemen, days after an airstrike on a potato factory in the country had killed a dozen in 2016.

Campaigners accused the then foreign secretary of showing a “total disregard” for Yemeni civilians by allowing the sales, revealed for the first time in emails disclosed via a freedom of information request.

A day after the sale was recommended for approval by Johnson in August 2016, a village school in Yemen was hit by another deadly airstrike, prompting further complaints that the UK is complicit in breaches of international humanitarian law.

UK arms controls mean that the foreign secretary has to be consulted on whether the Department for International Trade should licence “precision guided weapons systems and munitions that are likely to be used by the Saudi Royal Air Force in Yemen”.

 

An email dated 12 August 2016 to the Export Control Joint Unit, responsible for licensing UK arms deals, says that Johnson “was content” to advise that the licensing of components for Paveway bombs should go ahead.

A few days earlier, on 9 August, the Saudi-led coalition resumed airstrikes on Sana’a at the end of a ceasefire that had held since April. Reports at the time said that more than half of those killed in the strike were women.

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade accused the Conservative MP of showing a lack of compassion: “For Boris Johnson to approve a missile sale the day after a food factory was destroyed shows the total disregard that he and his colleagues hold for the rights and lives of Yemeni people.”

 

A day after the approval email was sent, on 13 August, a village school in the Sa’ada province was hit by an airstrike, which killed 10 children and injured 20.

The then cabinet minister has previously defended the arms sales during his time in office, saying in September 2016 that Saudi-led bombing campaign is not “in clear breach” of international humanitarian law.

Previously disclosures show that Johnson also assented to arms sales to Saudi Arabia in November 2016, the month after a funeral was bombed in Sana’a and dozens killed.

The UK is estimated to have licensed the sale of over £4.7bn worth of arms to Saudi Arabia since bombing began in March 2015. The Gulf nation has been the largest buyer of British-made arms for decades.

The correspondence shows that the Foreign Office’s Arms Policy Export Team has a duty to advise whether “there is a clear risk that these exports might be used in a serious violation of international humanitarian law”.

Officials in the export team concluded that “this clear risk test has not been met” in an email dated 10 August.

In another email, dated 27 July, the Export Team declare: “We have increased confidence in the Saudi pre-planned and dynamic targeting processes.”

That was criticised by the academic who originally obtained the emails, following a 20-month battle, Dr Anna Stavrianakis, a senior lecturer in international relations at the University of Sussex.

The academic said: “Coming days after an attack on a food factory, this information that suggests ‘increased confidence’ in Saudi processes is at odds with events on the ground.”

 

The court of appeal is deciding on a claim brought by the Campaign Against Arms Trade against the legality of the export of UK arms to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen. The high court had determined such sales were legal in July 2017, but two judges said that could be challenged in the higher court.

The Saudi-led coalition has been repeatedly accused of bombing indiscriminately during the Yemeni civil war, which is targeting Houthis and allied rebel groups backing the former president of Yemen, the late Ali Abdullah Saleh. Peace talks have led to a partial ceasefire.

Jeremy Hunt, who took over as foreign secretary in July 2018, and another Tory leadership contender, has defended arms sales to Saudi Arabia, arguing that halting them would be “morally bankrupt” because the UK would “surrender our influence”.

Johnson was approached for comment but has not responded.

[Legend_in_blue]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

They don't give you a choice of not paying for it if you don't want to watch it. You still have to pay for even if you own a tv that's not plugged into an aerial.

They could have if they charged a subscription like sky do. At the moment their budget is set by what is deemed acceptable to pay. If they charged £5000 a year, no-one would watch the tv.

 

 

Exactly this.

 

It is a stealth tax.  We are taxed for owning a TV.

 

The BBC should broadcast adverts so that we are no longer taxed by this archaic system.  The vast majority of the TV I watch contains adverts.  Of the vast majority of TV that I watch that contains adverts, I never watch at advert.  It's simple really.  Record the programme, watch it back and fast forward the adverts.  Problem solved.

 

Very little of what I watch is watched as it airs.  The BBC needs to drop the stealth tax.

 

 

[Charl91]

Love the BBC.

 

Don't watch the TV often, but BBC sport and Radio 4 are both great. Having a (relatively - obviously not flawless) unbiased news source I think is essential.

[Kopfkino]

Massive handful of salt required but who are these people that are basically voting purely for Boris? It's not even all coming from BP.

[Wymsey]

Migrants?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-48602172/driver-films-people-crawling-out-of-manhole-in-border-town

[ajthefox]

12 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Massive handful of salt required but who are these people that are basically voting purely for Boris? It's not even all coming from BP.

Salt a given. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell there are a good chunk of swing voters on there who have voted labour against Hunt, Javid, Gove, Raab but for the tories under Boris? Christ.

[yorkie1999]

5 hours ago, FIF said:

 

You don't get a choice as to what the government do with any of your taxes. Do you complain about everything you don't want it spent on?

 

The BBC are so much more than a supplier of tv programmes - not sure how you can compare them to SKY.

 

I presume though that you've never watched a match of the day or an FA cup final on the BBC - or the olympics or the news. You don't listen to the radio or read any BBC web site info - certainly not the LCFC related ones that you see on this site. And even if you don't and haven't then surely you understand the importance of a serious nation having its own broadcaster or maybe you'd be happy if Russia bought out the media services in the UK and just produced their programmes for you to watch.

Hang on a mo. We’re not on about me paying for choices , we’re on about the bbc charging old folk for their licence, which they previously got for free. Now they are being forced to pay for it and have no choice.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, ajthefox said:

Salt a given. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell there are a good chunk of swing voters on there who have voted labour against Hunt, Javid, Gove, Raab but for the tories under Boris? Christ.

 

Not all that many Lab switchers, I think. The figures are seats won, not people voting for different parties.

 

The main thing happening is would-be Brexit Party voters flocking to Boris & our stupid electoral system magnifying the benefits for him, because the opposition vote is split between Lab, LD & SNP etc.

 

252 Brexit Party MPs with Rory Stewart as Tory leader - and none at all with Boris as PM?!? 

 

Salt definitely required, but the gist of this really could happen.  

If Boris unifies most of the No Deal vote & the opposition vote is divided, Lab, LD, SNP & Greens could get 50%+ of the vote between them, yet a Boris-led Tory Party could win a landslide with 35% of the vote.

[Kopfkino]

34 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Not all that many Lab switchers, I think. The figures are seats won, not people voting for different parties.

 

The main thing happening is would-be Brexit Party voters flocking to Boris & our stupid electoral system magnifying the benefits for him, because the opposition vote is split between Lab, LD & SNP etc.

 

252 Brexit Party MPs with Rory Stewart as Tory leader - and none at all with Boris as PM?!? 

 

Salt definitely required, but the gist of this really could happen.  

If Boris unifies most of the No Deal vote & the opposition vote is divided, Lab, LD, SNP & Greens could get 50%+ of the vote between them, yet a Boris-led Tory Party could win a landslide with 35% of the vote.

 

The raw figures show huge DK figures (25%) which basically kills it usefulness even with all the salt in the world

[Guest MattP]

Whatever you think of Boris, on pure ballot box evidence he appears to be a serious vote winner.

 

Won Labour left leaning twice as mayor and led Vote Leave to victory.

 

First name recognition and fame is huge.

Edited 12 June 2019 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/authorities-insist-no-evidence-of-electoral-fraud-in-the-peterborough-by-election-as-police-investigate-allegations-1-8959871

 

What are people's views on harvesting postal votes? 

 

Fair or unfair?

[Buce]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/authorities-insist-no-evidence-of-electoral-fraud-in-the-peterborough-by-election-as-police-investigate-allegations-1-8959871

 

What are people's views on harvesting postal votes? 

 

Fair or unfair?

 

What are people's views on unfounded allegations without supporting evidence being stated as fact and used as a premise for a question?

 

Fair or unfair?

[Carl the Llama]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/authorities-insist-no-evidence-of-electoral-fraud-in-the-peterborough-by-election-as-police-investigate-allegations-1-8959871

 

What are people's views on harvesting postal votes? 

 

Fair or unfair?

I couldn't tell you because a local newspaper wants me to register with them before I can access their site  

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

What are people's views on unfounded allegations without supporting evidence being stated as fact and used as a premise for a question?

 

Fair or unfair?

Without supporting evidence? It looks dodgy as ****.

 

We all know harvesting goes on anyway and it appears to be legal, I don't think it should be - you should only get a postal vote if you are incapable of getting to the polling station. 

 

"On Mahmood’s involvement, a Labour spokesperson said: “Peterborough council, who organise the count, always announce the results in a public area of the venue. There were hundreds of people there. The Labour Party had 19 official guests who were allowed in to the restricted areas. He was not one of them.

“Members of the public can of course support Labour, but this individual did not play any role in Labour’s campaign.”

Mr Mahmood was not the only person jailed previously due to vote rigging in Peterborough with six being sent to prison in 2008.

The electoral fraud took place in Central ward, and at last week’s by-election the highest number of postal votes (1,445) out of all wards were recorded in Central - around 180 more than second place"