Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Laurence Fox. The twat.

the nomination rules haven't changed (I think) since the last mayoral election.
so he couldn't get everybody who signed the papers last time to do so again?
 
the nomination rules haven't changed (I think) since the last mayoral election.
so he couldn't get everybody who signed the papers last time to do so again?

It would have to be ten people who are capable of filling in forms, or, if not capable themselves (which can happen for various reasons that are not their fault), willing to ask someone to check the form for them - and with important forms it's probably always a good idea to have someone check them. The latter precludes arrogant bastards who think they're always right. Lozza's supporters, basically.

And I bet he did nominate himself.
 
Oh he won't like this.

Mirror:

Embarrassing reason Laurence Fox has been barred from standing to be London mayor​

Actor-turned-wannabe-politician Laurence Fox failed to submit the full paperwork before the deadline to stand as a candidate against Sadiq Khan in London mayoral election

Metro:

Laurence Fox misses out on running for London Mayor after messing up form​

Right-wing agitator Laurence Fox has blamed ‘pure political corruption’ after losing his spot on the ballot for Mayor of London due to a paperwork cock-up.

The Standard:

Laurence Fox barred from London mayoral election after submitting 'invalid' papers​

London Elects, the body that oversees the City Hall elections, has said Fox’s application to stand in the May 2 election was ‘not valid’

The Guardian:

Laurence Fox’s London mayor hopes end after errors filling in forms​

Former actor and Reclaim party candidate will have his fee and deposit returned after mistakes

There's only a small section on Sky News

It's in loads of local and regional papers around the UK as well. Also the Mail but I'm not linking to that shitrag. Oh, and the Express.
 
the nomination rules haven't changed (I think) since the last mayoral election.
so he couldn't get everybody who signed the papers last time to do so again?

There’s been a fair amount of water pass under the bridge since last time…
 
It would have to be ten people who are capable of filling in forms, or, if not capable themselves (which can happen for various reasons that are not their fault), willing to ask someone to check the form for them - and with important forms it's probably always a good idea to have someone check them. The latter precludes arrogant bastards who think they're always right. Lozza's supporters, basically.

And I bet he did nominate himself.

Even if all the people filling in the nomination forms are 100% competent, any halfway serious political organisation would double check them before submission.

They'd also submit in plenty of time before the deadline, rather than leaving it until the last minute as Fox appears to have done.

It will fascinating to see what response he gets to his demands to know why his nomination wasn't valid, and I'd be willing to bet it will be some sort of careless mistake which could and should have been easily spotted and remedied if proper care had been taken.

What an utter clown he is.
 
Even if all the people filling in the nomination forms are 100% competent, any halfway serious political organisation would double check them before submission.

They'd also submit in plenty of time before the deadline, rather than leaving it until the last minute as Fox appears to have done.

It will fascinating to see what response he gets to his demands to know why his nomination wasn't valid, and I'd be willing to bet it will be some sort of careless mistake which could and should have been easily spotted and remedied if proper care had been taken.

What an utter clown he is.
yeah, its not really difficult.

  • Ensure you have the most up to date voter registration list.
  • Ensure the nominee has written their details as written on said registration list.
  • Ensure all dates and signatures are in the right place.
  • Insert a witness signature (ensuring the above).
  • Count to ten.
I think that counts as straightforward. Though you do have to be able to count up to 33 as well. My guess would be they fucked up at the first step.
 
All hail the Stretched Gerbil! Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and cringe at the disintegrating embarrassment.

This might make a terrible film one day.
 
A fucking bin would have better admin skills than the lacklustre fox
TBF, Binface's promises seem a lot less bonkers on the surface of it than Susan Hall's do.

Disclosure: He got my first vote last time around. Wanted to see him beat Fox. I think they disclosed that something like 93% of Binface's voters had Khan as second choice, so really was just people teasing the vote system.
 
Last edited:

Isn't Easter meant to be a time of quiet reflection for Christians, so a gaudy celebration would be a bit of a faux pas? Isn't the same true for Muslims during Ramadan? So this might be in bad taste, but it is for very different reasons than Lozza's posting.
Eid al-Fitr is the celebration at the end of the holy month.
 
Easter Sunday is a day of celebration, but Good Friday is a sober day. A lot of Christians won't eat meat, for instance.
There's not even a mass from Good Friday 'til the Easter Vigil. Services, but no mass.

I've told the boy that the basket blessing is more important as Polish tradition than it is a religious thing, so he got halfway into it at least. I'm areligious myself, but Easter is Wrong without the basket blessing. You'll never see 3/4s of the people there set foot in church outside of maybe Christmas.
 
Given the wording of London Elects' statement, and Fox's claim they had more than enough, and the number of nominations ruled ineligible, I reckon it's likely that they the problem was something along the lines of they had eg 10-12 nominations in Islington, but eg 1-3 couldn't be reconciled with electoral register, which meant that there weren't enough nominations in the borough.

Given the wording, it seems more likely that they submitted forms with sufficient nominations, but it's the discounting of ineligible nominations that's brought the tally below the threshold in some boroughs and made his overall application fail to meet requirements.
 
Given the wording of London Elects' statement, and Fox's claim they had more than enough, and the number of nominations ruled ineligible, I reckon it's likely that they the problem was something along the lines of they had eg 10-12 nominations in Islington, but eg 1-3 couldn't be reconciled with electoral register, which meant that there weren't enough nominations in the borough.

Given the wording, it seems more likely that they submitted forms with sufficient nominations, but it's the discounting of ineligible nominations that's brought the tally below the threshold in some boroughs and made his overall application fail to meet requirements.
They only consider the first 10 names on the list, apparently. So he probably did have enough in each borough, but the first 10 names included errors in some of the boroughs.
 
They only consider the first 10 names on the list, apparently. So he probably did have enough in each borough, but the first 10 names included errors in some of the boroughs.

Tbh, not that I give a shit in this instance, that does seem like unnecessary hoop jumping. It wouldn't be great if an actual contender was caught out by something like that.
 
Actual contenders who can count and/or get their nominations in well before the deadline you mean?

(fair point though)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Back
Top Bottom