welshbairn Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Not that I particularly care about this, but sampling the votes pre count and before voting day would allow one side (or both) to target specific demographics based on the results of these samples. IMO this is the main issue here, and whether both sides did (or could) do it is immaterial. Not just general demographics, but they can match votes to individual signatures. So much for the secret ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Not just general demographics, but they can match votes to individual signatures. So much for the secret ballot. They can trace any vote if they can be arsed. At least in the booth there is genuinely no other fucker that can see what youre up to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 They can trace any vote if they can be arsed. At least in the booth there is genuinely no other fucker that can see what youre up to Do you have to swear as much? I find it a little fucking offensive, if I'm honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Do you have to swear as much? I find it a little fucking offensive, if I'm honest. I'll do whatever I like. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 I'll do whatever I like. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Parr Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Just can't see this coming to anything. Separately, the general accusations thrown at election staff have been nothing short of disgraceful. YES need to let it go, accept defeat and get on with the job of increasing the vote share for next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 This is clearly separate to any (in my opinion seriously misguided) claims of vote rigging. It is clear that any tallying or counting of votes prior to the close of the polls is illegal. If you break the law then it is not an acceptable defence to say that someone else did it too. I agree that postal voting is susceptible to this but voting by post is a right that has to be maintained for so many reasons. any breaking of the law which is intended to manage the fairness of this is therefore important to maintain this right. There is no way this should call into question the referendum process or result but if anyone is found guilty of breaking the laws that are in place to protect the integrity of our democratic process they should face the legal consequences of that. From what Ruth Davidson says, I think it's quite clear someone has. If the investigation identifies culprits on either side of the argument who commited this crime then they should face trial and recieve the appropriate punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 This is clearly separate to any (in my opinion seriously misguided) claims of vote rigging. It is clear that any tallying or counting of votes prior to the close of the polls is illegal. If you break the law then it is not an acceptable defence to say that someone else did it too. I agree that postal voting is susceptible to this but voting by post is a right that has to be maintained for so many reasons. any breaking of the law which is intended to manage the fairness of this is therefore important to maintain this right. There is no way this should call into question the referendum process or result but if anyone is found guilty of breaking the laws that are in place to protect the integrity of our democratic process they should face the legal consequences of that. From what Ruth Davidson says, I think it's quite clear someone has. If the investigation identifies culprits on either side of the argument who commited this crime then they should face trial and recieve the appropriate punishment. The last time it happened it was a police caution job. And that was because the wifie mentioned it BEFORE the polls closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 The worst that happens here is a few counters get a police caution. While they may well have broken the law (notwithstanding the fact everyone does this and its collectively understood that you just don't talk about it) it is not apparent that Davidson herself has broken the law by divulging the information she was given by them, after the polls had closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Do you have to swear as much? I find it a little fucking offensive, if I'm honest. It's a fucking affliction caused by a fucking inadequate vocabulary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 It's a fucking affliction caused by a fucking inadequate vocabulary. Quite the c**t, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Quite the c**t, is it not? Pure shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buNjFwDpe80 If you go to 1:49.30 you'll hear Humza saying something that may be of interest to the passengers on the outrage bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Seems the cooncils don't necessarily agree with Ruth: http://ayescotland.co.uk/streuth-ruth-whats-the-truth/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Mercer Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Paul Ferris :1eye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Paul Ferris :1eye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Paul Ferris :1eye He's a mate of Martin Compston's y'know and he's just "misunderstood". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Mercer Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 He's a mate of Martin Compston's y'know and he's just "misunderstood". Heard he was lined up for the Justice Minister job in an independant Scotland :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hampden Diehard Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Heard he was lined up for the Justice Minister job in an independant Scotland :lol: As Ferris is a guy who has been tough on crime (well, at least on some of his fellow criminals anyway), he would seem to be an ideal candidate. Vote YES! Ach, too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.