Still talking of Twitter but getting back to BBC-related matters...
I see that #SackKuenssberg is trending on Twitter. (Isn't it always?).
Corbynistas are going absolutely mad and accusing her of breaking electoral law by revealing how postal votes are trending. Why? Because she said this on today's Politics Live?:
The postal votes, of course, have already arrived. The parties, they're not meant to look at it but they do kind of get a hint, and on both sides people are telling me that the postal votes that are in are looking pretty grim for Labour in lots of parts of the country.
Here's a flavour of the (politer) reaction:
- Time for BBC to sack Laura Kuenssberg to protect it’s [sic] already ruined reputation. Broadcasters are not allowed to reveal postal votes before 10PM polling day as it influences the vote. Laura has proved to be a Tory machine.
- Dear Tony Hall, DG. This must surely be Laura Kuenssberg'd [sic] final draft of her resignation: She has either 1) committed a crime under the RPA (punishable by imprisonment).2) Amplified another LIE from "Senior Tory Sources" without even student-level fact checking.
- I have rung their [sic] Electoral Commission to complain about Laura Kuenssberg speaking on TV that The postal votes show it is ‘grim for Labour’ - I am so ANGRY!! Call Electoral Commission 0333 103 1928 & complain. We are NOT a Banana Republic.
- Not once in my life have I ever advocated someone losing their job. But Kussenberg [sic] must go. Her bias is obvious and deplorable and she is now breaking the law to undermine democracy.
The Electoral Commission itself has tweeted the following this afternoon:
It may be an offence to communicate any information obtained at postal vote opening sessions, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed. Anyone with information to suggest this has happened should report it immediately to the police.— Electoral Commission (@ElectoralCommUK) December 11, 2019
So, where does that leave Laura K?
She was, after all, only reporting what people 'on both sides' are telling her. Aren't those people the 'guilty' ones?
Or does her 'passing on' what they're communicating about the votes cast also constitute 'communicating information obtained at postal vote opening sesssions, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed'?
In other words, are her Corbynista critics right?
I'm beggared if I know. Do you?
She was, after all, only reporting what people 'on both sides' are telling her. Aren't those people the 'guilty' ones?
Or does her 'passing on' what they're communicating about the votes cast also constitute 'communicating information obtained at postal vote opening sesssions, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed'?
In other words, are her Corbynista critics right?
I'm beggared if I know. Do you?
