Tag Archive for: Petition

Press Regulation

/in /by

Some mixed news relating to press regulation.

The good news is that our petition has passed the 10,000 mark meaning the government must now respond to it. Thank you to everyone who signed it

The not so good news is that I have received the following e mail relating to the complaint I made about the Express article entitled “Food shop alert as YOUR supermarket bill set to soar due to EU red tape”

Dear Dr Poole,

The Complaints Committee has considered your complaint, the email of 14th June 2021 from IPSO’s Executive notifying you of its view that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code, and your email of 14th June 2021 requesting a review of the Executive’s decision. The Committee agreed the following decision:

The Committee noted that the headline incorporating the term “EU red tape” introduced the article, which at one point contrasted the UK Government’s position of unilaterally delaying the implementation of some of the border checks, with the EU’s recourse to legal action in order to enforce full implementation of the checks.

For this reason, and the reasons already provided by IPSO’s Executive, the Committee decided that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code. As such, it declined to re-open your complaint.

The Committee would like to thank you for giving it the opportunity to consider your concerns.

Best wishes,

This is very disappointing as it effectively allows the Express to falsely blame the price rises on the EU and shows that reform of how the press is regulated is desperately needed. We need a situation where regulation is carried out by individuals who are genuinely independent from the press and politics to ensure that newspapers like the Express cannot get away with what they are doing.

I will be challenging this outcome as soon as I have chance but we do need to continue to press for changes to the way the press is regulated which I would suggest we do in a number of ways.

Firstly, we should keep complaining about articles such as the one I refer to above published by the likes of the Express. This will make it clear to the likes of the Express and indeed IPSO that we are serious about the issue of fair and accurate reporting relating to the EU. Indeed I will be posting details of another Express article we should all complain about – just about the only good thing about IPSO is they do actually make it very easy to complain!

Secondly, we should put pressure on those that advertise in the likes of the Express asking them if they are happy for their organisation or brand to be promoted in publications that regularly mislead their readers and publish false information that is often of a nature that is offensive. We saw that this tactic can be effective with the recent launch of GB news when several leading brands pulled their advertising.

Thirdly, we should consider demonstrating outside the offices of publications such as the Express and the Mail, and indeed IPSO itself. Again, this will let them know we are watching what they do and that we are serious about putting a stop to it.

Fourthly we should press through political channels for the regulatory regime to be improved, indeed the petition starts this process. We should write to MPs about this, especially MPs we think would be sympathetic to the issue and attempt to place motions onto the agenda of party conferences.

We are of course open to other ideas so please do let us know if you have any.

Unbelievable Hypocrisy from the Government yet again

/in /by

The Government has responded to the petition calling for the plans for voter ID to be scrapped with the e mail below.

The third paragraph starts with the words ‘Electoral fraud is a crime that strikes at the core principles of our democracy’

That is unbelievable hypocrisy coming from a government led by people who lied on an unprecedented industrial scale and broke both electoral law and data protection law in order to obtain votes in 2016.

I urge to write to your MP pointing this out 

Dear Adam Poole

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Scrap the Voter ID requirement introduced in the Election Integrity Bill”.

Government responded:

Voter identification is part of the Government’s body of work to strengthen the integrity and security of our elections. We will not remove voter identification requirements from the Elections Bill.

The Government was elected on a manifesto that committed to protecting the integrity of our democracy, by introducing identification to vote at polling stations. The Government has since announced that we will be bringing forward these measures as part of a wider initiative to tackle electoral fraud and give voters confidence in our elections.

Electoral fraud is a crime that strikes at a core principle of our democracy – that your vote is yours, and yours alone. Strengthening the integrity of our electoral system will give the public confidence that our elections will remain secure well into the future.

Showing identification to prove who you are is something people of all walks of life already do everyday. It is a reasonable and proportionate approach to extend this practice to voting and to give the public confidence that their vote is theirs, and theirs alone.

Everyone who is eligible to vote will continue to be able to do so. The list of approved photographic identification will not be limited to passports and driving licences. A broad range of documents will be accepted, including, for example, various concessionary travel passes, PASS cards, Ministry of Defence identity cards and photocard parking permits issued as part of the Blue Badge scheme.

In addition, expired photographic identification will be accepted as long as the photograph is of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder.

New research published by the Government shows that 98% of voters already own a photographic document that is on the list of acceptable types of identification under this policy. The figure was between 96%-99% across all age groups and regions and found that 99% of people from ethnic minorities owned an accepted form of identification. This research can be found at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9187/

Where a voter does not have one of the approved forms of photo identification, local authorities will be required, by law, to provide a Voter Card free of charge. An independent review of electoral fraud conducted by Lord Pickles highlighted the events of cases such as Tower Hamlets – in which the 2014 Mayoral election was declared void by corrupt and illegal practices – as evidence of vulnerabilities in our system which must be addressed.

Personation – assuming the identity of another person with the intention to deceive – is very difficult to prove and prosecute but it is by no means a victimless crime. There are frequent anecdotal reports of personation, including most recently during the 2021 local elections. Often, it only comes to light if and when the real voter tries to vote later after the crime has been committed.

That is why voter identification is so important, as it virtually eliminates the risk of personation occurring in the first place.

Even the perception that our electoral system is vulnerable to fraud is damaging for public confidence. Data from our pilot evaluations in 2018 and 2019 show that the requirement to show identification increased voter confidence in the process. Both rounds of voter identification pilots also demonstrated our ability to collaborate very successfully with local authorities and support them in delivering voter identification that works for voters.
Voters in Northern Ireland have been required by law to show paper identification since 1985 and the Labour Government introduced photo identification at polling stations across Northern Ireland in 2003. The experience in Northern Ireland illustrates that once the requirement has become established and is part and parcel of the voting process, the vast majority of voters complete the voting process after turning up at the polling station. This is also the case in many countries around the world, where voter identification works with ease.

We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders, including charities and civil society organisations, to make sure that voter identification works for all voters.

Cabinet Office

Self-regulation of the news media has failed

/in /by

We all know how dishonest and biased some parts of the news media can be – and that often comes to the fore when reporting on issues relating to the EU which culminated in the media frenzy over Article 16 and vaccines a few weeks ago when the British news media wrongly reported that the EU had triggered article 16.

Part of the problem is the current regulatory system for the news media is virtually useless as it is a self-regulatory system that has little real means of enforcing decisions and the press are not under any obligation to report in fair, objective and unbiased manner.

Let’s send a very clear message to the news media and parliament that this is not an acceptable situation by signing and sharing this petition.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/573850

Criminal Lies

/in /by


We have seen throughout politics politicians saying things that are not true or that are intended to mislead people. Why do we accept this as a norm? We even listen to people say ‘oh well they all lie don’t they?’ Are we really going to accept that!? I don’t think so. 

Brexit and Trump brought in an extreme level of ‘just say whatever you want and someone will believe it’ politics. The reason why it has been allowed to get so bad is not just due to poor critical thinking skills but also no repercussions for simply lying to voters. 

You’d think something as serious as misleading or lying to the voters would be illegal… but somehow we are in a position where people have accepted it. Why would any believer in democratic systems and processes accept such a thing? 

We could campaign to change it especially if we find enough people who are against lying in politics…

Sign my petition which calls for the introduction of criminal sanctions on MPs who intentionally or recklessly mislead the public with written or unwritten statements. 

It is time we had people running the country who are not playing games but just want to run the country well and for the benefit of the people. 

Sign the petition if you are against lying to the people

Our Petition Calling for a Public Inquiry into the 2016 EU Membership Referendum

/in /by

Back in March before Lockdown started, I set up a Parliamentary petition calling for an independent Public Inquiry into the 2016 referendum with the dishonesty and unlawful activity of the Leave Campaign in mind.

I did so not in the hope that the current government would agree to hold one. That is never going to happen given that Johnson and the current leadership of the Tory party were up to their necks in the wrongdoings of the Leave Campaign.

I did so to highlight the fact that we, the remain movement are still here, and that we haven’t gone away. I also had it in mind that maybe, just maybe, if we could force a Government response, they might give us a stick to beat them with.

That response arrived last week and is displayed below, and yes, they did give us a stick to beat them with. The misleading and dishonest nature of the response is quite something.

I have therefore written to the chair of the Petitions Committee, Catherine McKinnell MP expressing my disappointment with the Government response.

I have also written to the Prime Minister, taking apart the Government response line by line, which I have posted below the response to the petition.

The government response to our petition calling for an investigation into the EU Referendum already:

“The legality of the EU referendum is beyond doubt, which is why there are no plans for an inquiry. The referendum result should be respected, which is why the UK has now left the European Union.

Almost three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 EU referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at the UK Government.

The referendum was carried out in accordance with legislation passed by Parliament. The provisions relating to the conduct of the referendum were carefully scrutinised and ratified by Parliament, and there was a six week period in which the result of the EU referendum could be challenged by judicial review.

The Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body responsible for ensuring that elections and referendums are run effectively and in accordance with the law. Fines were levied on multiple groups on both sides of the referendum campaign.

We treat the security and integrity of our democratic processes extremely seriously. That’s why the Government continues to strengthen and modernise the framework which governs electoral campaigning to make sure the rules work, now and in the future.

In the 2019 General Election, the British people cast their votes once again and elected, with a substantial majority, a Government committed to upholding the result of the referendum.

Following the Election, Parliament voted with clear majorities in both Houses for the

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.

By honouring the result of the referendum and having now left the European Union on 31

January 2020, this Government has helped preserve confidence in the UK’s democracy.

For these reasons, the Government has no plans to hold a public inquiry into the 2016

referendum.

Cabinet Office”

My letter to Boris Johnson:

Dear Prime Minister

I write on behalf over the 23,000 plus people who have signed my petition calling for a public inquiry into the 2016 EU membership referendum and the 18,000 plus people who support my Campaign to Rejoin the EU.

Last week your Government responded to my petition as it had reached the 10,000 threshold for such a response. There are several aspects of that response that are not satisfactory that I wish to raise with you.

Firstly, your Government claims that the legality of the referendum is beyond doubt.  As I am sure you are aware the outcome of the referendum was challenged in various court cases over the last few years. Whilst those challenges ultimately proved unsuccessful, it should however be noted that it was established in the Miller case that the referendum was ineffective in law. Furthermore, in the Wilson case, the Government’s own lawyer admitted that the Government knew the result of the referendum was tarnished.

The claim made in the response that the legality of the referendum is beyond doubt is therefore simply wrong.

 In addition, it should also be noted that whilst the government treated the referendum as binding, part of the Government’s defence when challenged over the legality of their actions concerning the referendum in the Webster case, was that the referendum was advisory.

That is unacceptable. To treat the 2016 referendum as mandatory as the Government did but subsequently rely in court on a defence that it was advisory to avoid the result being annulled, as the government did, is frankly duplicitous.

Secondly, the response goes on to say that three quarters of the ‘electorate’ took part in the referendum trusting that the result would be respected. However, that ‘electorate’ was defined by the government in such a way that the approximately three million people who had most to lose in the event of  a vote to leave EU were excluded from participating, including many of the British citizens living in other EU countries enjoying their rights of freedom of movement conferred upon them by our EU membership. The response makes no mention of this fact.

Furthermore, many people who took part in that referendum, did so on the basis that they could trust that all parties involved would conduct themselves fairly and honestly. In this later respect, the Leave campaign most definitely did not conduct themselves honestly. Indeed Professor Michael Dougan concluded that ‘The Leave Campaign degenerated into dishonesty on an industrial scale’ and ‘that on virtually every major issue that was raised in the referendum debate, Leave’s argument consisted of, at best, misrepresentations and at worst, outright lies.’

Having conducted my own analysis of the Leave Campaign, I have to say that I concur with Professor Dougan as I have concluded that the entire Leave Campaign narrative was and continues to be based upon deliberate and sustained falsehood.

Indeed nothing could represent this more than the unprecedented intervention by the Head of the UK statistics authority letter in the form of a letter written to yourself effectively pointing out your lies concerning the cost of our EU membership that were also emblazoned on the side of a bus during the campaign.

Such planned and sustained dishonesty is not acceptable and itself represents a gross breach of trust. For the issue of voter trust to be raised in the response is therefore rather ironic and hypocritical.

Thirdly the response states that 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU, providing the biggest democratic mandate in UK history. Those 17.4 million people represented just 37% of the restricted electorate for the referendum which is just 26% of the UK population.

That is not a majority by any stretch of the imagination.

Furthermore, given the dishonesty noted above, together with the unlawful activity of the Leave Campaign that I will address shortly, one must ask how many votes Leave would have received had they acted within the law and with honesty?

Sadly, we will never know the answer to that question, but I suspect it would have been a considerably lower figure.

Given this, the actions of the Government in pursuing our exit from the EU based upon the referendum result has in fact breached the trust that the electorate had in that referendum rather than upholding that trust.

Fourthly, the response goes on to state that parliament scrutinised the conduct of the referendum and that the result could be challenged in the form of a judicial review within six weeks of the referendum.

This parliamentary scrutiny occurred before the unlawful activity by the Leave Campaign came to light and was no doubt conducted under the ‘Party Whip’ system meaning the quality of that scrutiny is questionable. Furthermore, the illegal activity came to light after the six-week period within which the result could be challenged by judicial review, a point the government later relied upon in its defence to the legal challenge in the Wilson case, something that was acknowledged by the judges.

These claims made in the response do not therefore accurately represent the true situation and are at best misleading.   

Fifthly, whilst it is true that both sides were fined by the Electoral Commission as claimed in the response, that does not make such unlawful activity acceptable or justified.  Furthermore, the Leave Campaign was fined the maximum amount permissible for at least one offence, whereas the fines levied on the Remain Campaign were much lower, which is indicative of the unlawful acts committed by the Leave Campaign being much more serious than those committed by the Remain Campaign.

In addition to these fines, the Information Commissioners Office also levied multiple large fines on the Leave Campaign for breaching Data Protection Laws. These are not mentioned in the response and neither are the fines levied on other organisations such as Facebook that were connected to the conduct of various parts of the Leave Campaign such as Cambridge Analytica who stole data from Facebook.

So again, the response by the Government does not accurately reflect the true situation and, again, is at best, misleading.

Furthermore, there is still strong suspicion amongst the electorate at large that the Leave Campaign may have breached criminal Law, a situation exacerbated by recent claims made by Aron banks that the NCA agents investigating him had given him an easy ride as they were Brexiteers. 

Again, this is not acceptable, and one must ask how many votes Leave would have received had they acted within the law?

Sixthly, the response goes on to state that the Government takes the security and integrity of our electoral system seriously. This claim simply does not stand up to scrutiny, given the failure of the Government to request that the security services investigate allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 referendum.

This  failure is particularly concerning as various government figures and parliamentary bodies seem quite willing to admit that the Russians have interfered in various other of democratic exercises such as the Scottish Independence Referendum and the 2019 General Election. Frankly, given those admissions, it is very difficult to believe that the Russians would not have interfered in the one democratic exercise that they stood to benefit the most from, specifically the 2016 EU membership referendum. 

Until this omission is corrected and the alleged Russian interference is in the referendum is fully investigated, the government claims made in the response about taking the security and integrity of our democratic processes very seriously are simply not credible.

Seventhly, the response claims that the British People cast their votes and elected a Government committed to upholding the result of the referendum.  Whilst this statement is factually correct, it is only so because of our flawed electoral system. In December 2019, 53% of the British Electorate voted for parties committed to offering a further referendum on our EU membership.

The 2019 election result does therefore not provide a mandate for your Government to leave the EU and the response therefore yet again fails to reflect the true situation .

Taking us out of the EU, as you have done, is therefore not the act of a Prime Minister or Government committed to democracy.  Additionally, when coupled with your part in the dishonesty of the Leave Campaign in 2016 and subsequently, means that act has no democratic legitimacy whatsoever.

Finally, in the concluding paragraph, the response claims that the Government has helped preserve confidence in the UK’s democracy. Given the above, this is patently not the case and is therefore yet another false claim.

If anything, the Government’s actions have seriously  undermined democracy in our country, and indeed undermined the rule of law and the very existence of the United Kingdom given the way they have allowed dishonesty and unlawful activity to prevail. Still given your role in that Leave Campaign, that is hardly surprising.

Professor Dougan summed this issue up by stating ‘I’m afraid that Leave have inflicted quite untold damage on the quality of our democracy’. I have no reason to doubt his judgement on this issue.

In conclusion I therefore have to state that the response is neither satisfactory or acceptable.

In fact the response is seriously misleading and does not reflect the true situation in any way.

Your decision to remove this country form the EU has no legitimacy and never will.

What you have done is not acceptable, the behaviour of the Leave Campaign relating to the 2016 referendum, including your personal role in that will be investigated, and you will be held to account for your actions.

The Remain Movement is still here, is still active, and is not going away! We will retake our rightful place at the heart of the EU that you and the Leave Campaign have illegitimately deprived us of.

Yours Sincerely

Dr Adam Poole

Public Inquiry into the 2016 Referendum

/in /by

I know many of you are sceptical of petitions but at least with parliamentary petitions the Government has to respond when a petition receives over 10,000 signatures. This petition calls for an inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 referendum.


Let’s put some pressure on Johnson and Cummings and let them know we are still here! They broke the law and lied.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300473

Parliamentary petition on press regulation

/in /by

If you have ever read the likes of The Express, Daily Mail or the Sun I’m sure you will have been concerned about the quality of the reporting, the lack of impartiality and indeed the lack of accuracy at times. Indeed the material published by such so called newspapers about the EU is a cause for concern.

Our campaign has therefore set up a parliamentary petition aimed at starting to address this issue by calling for the replacement of the current voluntary system of self regulation with one of statutory regulation by a regulator with the ability to deal effectively with transgressors.

You can see and sign the petition by clicking here