There was two re counts and each time it had the BNP two hundred ahead. After people had left the counting hall, Labour said that that some BNPs voted had been counted twice. People are just going to think Labour 'helped' two hundred BNP votes disappear. If they try to remove her through the courts it will be a massive boost for the BNP, think about it the result is altered after two recounts by Labour. People don't like parties who are bad losers like Labour and try to ajust a result more to Labour's liking. I believe she has offered to fight a bye election instead of Labour trying to alter the results through the courts at a cost of 30000 pounds to tax payers. I believe the BNP would trounce them in a by election after this or if they did remove her through the courts the BNP would benifit in furtrue elections. This stinks of Labour corruption.

No, it stinks of a mistake and the arrogance of the BNP and Sharon Ebanks.

Article here
 http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/index.php?itemid=230

BNP take council Birmingham seat despite losing

The dreadful Sharon Ebanks, hardcore BNP member of long-standing and well-known for her abrasive style, has walked straight into controversy before she's even been elected as a councillor for the Kingstanding ward on Birmingham City Council.

Ebanks, the BNP candidate, was mistakenly informed that she had won at the count on election night but after the Returning Officer had declared the result, it was realised that the first count added up to a total of more than 12000 votes - but there was a maximum possible number of only 9962. It appeared, as council officials noted on the night, that the tellers had double-counted the votes cast for Ebanks as a result of some confusion over the number of seats that were contested.

A recount revealed that Ebanks had in fact lost to Labour - in fact, come in at third place - but the peculiarities of the election process mean that once the Returning Officer has declared the result, it stands until an election petition is raised at the High Court.

Sharon Ebanks, despite knowing that she lost the seat and that the mistake should be rectified through the courts, has arrogantly decided to take the seat that she is legally entitled to - for the moment - but morally should hand over to the true winner. This decision has infuriated the other councillors. Mike Whitby, the Conservative leader of the city council, said it was 'abhorrent' that the far-right BNP could end up with a place in the council chamber even though its representative had trailed in third place behind Catherine Grundy and Zoe Hopkins, who won the other Kingstanding seat for Labour.

Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, whose constituency borders the ward, said: 'That the BNP seek to divide people on racial and ethnic grounds is disgraceful in this day and age. The fact that they plan to take up this seat is hateful.' He added: 'The BNP has got to understand that there is a proper legal process to go through. If they had won then they would be perfectly entitled to their seat, but they did not, and their actions show they do not understand the process.'

Oh, they understand it alright - they just don't give a toss. The BNP have shown by its campaigns of lies, smears and distortions, its overt and covert racism, its attacks on Jews and Muslims, and in numerous other ways that it has no real interest in the political process except insofar as it can be used to spread the divisive and dangerous racism of the BNP as far and wide as possible.

One wonders why Ebanks is so desparate to take the seat, despite the fact that it patently doesn't belong to her. Perhaps it's the £15000 a year that she'll receive as a backbench councillor - or maybe it's just because she believes that being a councillor will give her a platform for spreading her own and the BNP's racism - though naturally she denies being racist, stating; 'I am not racist and neither is my party.' And to prove it, she regularly wheels out her friendship with her black neighbour. On the other hand, she also says; 'My son wouldn't bring home a black girlfriend because he is also in the BNP and I would not go out with a black man because I am part of the BNP.'

That looks typically anti mixed-race relationship racist to me. Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, might agree or not - it's difficult to tell. In this clip  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm from the BBC election night special, Griffin obviously has no idea what his own party's policy on mixed-race relationships is.

It's no wonder Ebanks is confused.

Still, Lancaster UAF is here to help dispel the doubts - Ebanks, you ARE a racist but you're NOT a councillor. There, maybe that's clarified things a little.

"There was two re counts and each time it had the BNP two hundred ahead."

There were two miscounts, the only way the BNP can get ahead

"After people had left the counting hall, Labour said that that some BNPs voted had been counted twice."

After the Police and Facist elect has left the room, are you suggesting the returing officer and his staff are part of this 'Labour Corruption'


"People are just going to think Labour 'helped' two hundred BNP votes disappear. If they try to remove her through the courts it will be a massive boost for the BNP, think about it the result is altered after two recounts by Labour."

The two recounts were done by Council officials, the boost would be removing this facist.

"People don't like parties who are bad losers like Labour and try to ajust a result more to Labour's liking. I believe she has offered to fight a bye election instead of Labour trying to alter the results through the courts at a cost of 30000 pounds to tax payers."

What people don't like is a facist party thats fluked its way in to the Council.

"I believe the BNP would trounce them in a by election after this or if they did remove her through the courts the BNP would benifit in furtrue elections. This stinks of Labour corruption."

I belive that the BNP is the emitamy of the failure of local politicials in all areas. They get in by playing on narrow minded fears. A bunch of thugs and criminals not fit to wipe the shoes of the decent people in this country.

For the correct story -  http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/news/tm_objectid=17046242%26method=full%26siteid=50002-name_page.html

HI Zac,

The election officals knew that the count was inaccurate because 12,329 votes had been cast in a ward with only 9,962 potential ballots:-

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/4975326.stm

Having posted that, I noticed this:

'People don't like parties who are bad losers like Labour and try to ajust a result more to Labour's liking. I believe she has offered to fight a bye election...'

I don't see how rectifying a mistake makes anyone a bad loser. I've no brief for Labour but it seems to me that they're doing the right thing (in electoral politics) in making the objections they are. Personally, I'd agree that the immediate by-election was the only safe way out - meaning one that would satisfy the electorate that there had been no funny business.

9,962 is the maximum nuber of votes that, could have been cast from a count of the polling papers held in secret after the police had left, note that only the BNP were affected by this "over count" with a few token handfuls from Labour and libdems.
The question, why was the number of ballot papers counted as correct twice and signed off as such, yet when the police go away, they count them again in "secret" and they are over 100 short of the first count.

Answers on a postcard.

The FOURTH recount was done in private behind closed doors with the BNP candidate and agent not informed, then the election oficer said the BNP had lost Labour had won. Now if you are a Birmingham resident and aware of the Birmingham's reputation for vote rigging, what would you think. This is a council with form. The whole sorry story is a gift for the BNP in Birmingham.

Would there be much of a stir and protest on here if it involved a neo-Commie SWP/Respect councillor instead of a BNP one?

:-/

I stand corrected there was know fourth recount the returning officer reliased there had been a mistake and guessed what the result should be, democracy in action in Birmingham. The BNP are delighted.

You are incorrect - the councillor was democratically elected; ask Birmingham Council who has now decided not to spend public money on a hate campaign against Sharon.

If you are prepared to intimidate, harass and victimise people who WERE voted in via the right and just channels then it is you who shall be held to account, and that also applies to councillors on Birmingham Council using public money to realise their own personal agenda.

Whatever you think of the BNP, Sharon has been elected democratically and you should instead make more constructive use of your resources; why do you not question the antics of the Council, in its attempt to conceal what it was doing with that council behind a closed door, in a private meeting?

All you're doing is making yourself look worse than those who you are accusing and unless you are prepared to give that person their lawful and democratic right to hold office - and to prove themselves to the best of their ability - you are actually standing in the way of democracy. Think about what you are encouraging here.

It's the Council who is under scrutiny here - not Sharon. Anyone attempt to malest the democratic process will also, result in court action because we live in a democracy where you are held to account for your actions. I don't think Sharon has a problem with that..maybe you do..