Alright, Fair one. I withdraw the accusation.I think you must have misread my post. I agreed it was better for you to bug out not continue to demonstrate further ignorance and then demean yourself by squealing wacist.
For the avoidance of doubt -
Postal voting block corruption is a problem among certain muslim communities, mainly Bengali and Pakistani. It is routed in their corrupt practices in the subcontinent.
It is not among whites, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, blacks etc.
The person getting elected is not the issue, the voter base being controlled as a block and thus enabling corruption is. So it's perfectly possible for Muslim mps to be completely legitimately elected. Equally it's possible for the corrupt practice to elect non-Muslims. George Galloway for example.
There is zero evidence of white peoples postal votes being harvested for block voting by 'community leaders' because it does not happen.
There is zero evidence of black peoples postal votes being harvested for block voting by 'community leaders' because it does not happen.
Hence when you see the likes of Lammy and Abbott in action they are always going on about 'black issues'. It's onesided obviously but they wear their 'we're going into bat for you' credentials on their sleeve publicly as they are looking for individual votes.
Corrupt politicians relying on block votes just do the deals behind closed doors and when the deal is suitably favourable to the block the instruction gets passed down the line.
As a LBTH resident with extensive contacts within THLP including those who were instrumental in exposing this stuff I do know what I am talking about, hence I don't discuss issues of corruption with reference to GLA regulations as that's as pointless as saying 'drug dealing is illegal so how can you say it exists'.
Have a pleasant evening and respond if you have anything useful to add. (But wacist is neither true or useful btw).
However, you were the one one who stated that the issue of postal vote fraud was not related to the nature of the election when I questioned the fact that the original point of this thread is related to the Mayoral / Assembly elections.
You may feel that the current Mayor is inherently corrupt. Fine, produce the evidence.
You may believe that the practices exposed a decade ago in a single London Borough (and dealt with by the criminal justice system appropriately) represent an endemic corruption in a particular demographic across all electoral constituencies. Fine, produce the evidence.
I am not talking about GLA "regulations". As a London Voter, you will be aware that what TH, RBKC, City of Westminster etc get up is their own business and is only directed from the GLA in terms of strategic direction on effectively national level devolved policy issues and this does not include the running of their electoral processes - which is overseen by the electoral commission.
So my question remains: If there is no difference between a local, regional/devolved or national election in terms of their susceptibility to electoral fraud why are you relying on the evidence of a single case that happened 10 years ago to support this assertion?
I understand that you may tell me to do my own research, but (despite your statements that I know fuck all about any of it) I have done quite a lot - for professional reasons.
I am calling you out on what, as far as I can make out, is opinion (in lieu of evidence outside of TH, which I am aware of) relating to widespread (and potentially international) corruption in every part of all the electoral processes of the UK and would genuinely appreciate a link or two.
P.S. I also note that all you seem to have a certain political bent towards the individuals you have mentioned. I am not judging but could this be a factor?