“Postal votes are no less safe than voting in person.”
Really? You should take a look at the judgement from the Electoral Court which examined the election of Lutfur Rahman as the mayor of Tower Hamlets. You can find a link to the full judgement here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648
To save you searching through all of the 200 page document (which I have read in its entirety and which I can commend to anybody who doubts that electoral malpractice is rife in Muslim communities) here’s a few salient points from the judgement:
357 Mr Mukit knows the Weavers Ward well, having lived there for over thirty years. For the 2014 election he canvassed a large number of properties in the ward. He discovered a considerable quantity of addresses where there appeared to be no trace of the voter whose name appeared on the register. Though some of his evidence was admittedly hearsay, it painted a pattern of postal voters having been asked by supporters of Mr Rahman to hand over their postal votes and of voters having handed completed ATV forms to Mr Kabir Ahmed and his brothers. Mr Mukit was astonished to discover several voters who told him that they had voted by post at a time when the postal votes had not yet been sent out. It turned out that these voters had been induced to hand over their completed ATV forms in the belief that they were actually voting. Mr Mukit discovered evidence that at one address, 7 Bacon Street E1 6LF, seven postal votes had been ‘collected by Mr Rahman’s men’ which apparently meant that they had collected the completed PVSs but uncompleted accompanying ballot papers.
358 One of the voters mentioned was an elderly lady, Gulab Bibi. This lady gave evidence in response to a witness summons (properly using an interpreter). Other members of her family also gave evidence. Both she and her family were adamant that she had cast her postal vote herself. A chance question from the Bench, however, revealed that what she had done was to sign a document and hand it over (clearly the PVS) and she denied ever having put a cross on a piece of paper. On the face of it this was a further instance of the first of the two frauds having been perpetrated on this lady (and the electorate).
359 Mr Gilligan told the court:
We also visited another address, 37 Cavell Street, E1, a small block of about twelve flats reserved for elderly Bangladeshi people, where I was told that a number of the residents had had their blank ballot papers taken from them against their will by supporters of Lutfur Rahman and Tower Hamlets First. Through the translator, one resident told me that this had indeed occurred. She said: “A woman came and said, we are here from Lutfur Rahman’s party. Many people of your age have voted for him already, so I’m here to take your vote. They came to me and took my signature and then took the blank ballot paper from me. I normally go to the polling station. I told them I was used to doing it myself and didn’t understand why it was different this year. I am a long-term Labour supporter and would never have supported Lutfur Rahman…”
377 With regard to the unlawful completion and use of voting documents by third parties, the court was satisfied that both corrupt and illegal practices had taken place and had been committed by persons who were, in electoral law, the agents of Mr Rahman.
These paragraphs by no means demonstrate the extent of postal voting fraud extant in the Tower Hamlets election. You can read the entire judgement for yourself if you want to. But there was no doubt that widespread fraud with postal votes took place. This type of abuse seems prevalent in Muslim areas.
There is no place for unjustified postal voting in the UK. It should be reserved for those genuinely unable to get to the polling station. It is clearly far easier to harvest a barrow load of postal voting forms than it is to arrange for the same number of bogus voters to present themselves to vote in person.