The Defence Brief

Nuttall criticised for his living arrangements but not for that awful outfit Over the past few days, UKIP leader and Swindon by-election candidate, Paul Nuttall has faced criticism for giving his home address, on the Home Address form that is part of the nomination pack for prospective political candidate, as one where he does not live. Mr Nuttall answers these criticisms by saying that he gave the address because he has rented the house and intends to move into it for the duration of the election campaign. Journalists, most notably Michael Crick, have been forthright in their claims that Mr Nuttall broke the law and could face prison for making a false declaration. So, what is the truth? Michael Crick on Paul Nuttall Prospective candidates must register their nomination with the returning officer by providing certain information. The required information is set out in paragraph 6 of schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. All of the required ...

Operation Croissant The Homicide and Major Organised Crimes Command unit of the Metropolitan Police recently contacted organisers of Operation Croissant to tell them that their plan to hand out free croissants to commuters in London is banned as a “corrupt practice” under section 114 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Section 114 falls under the heading “Bribery, treating and undue influence”. Section 113 deals with bribery while section 114 deals with “treating”, which is exactly what it sounds like – giving somebody a treat to influence their decision to vote or refrain from voting.   Section 114 reads: “ 114 Treating. (1 )A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of treating. (2) A person shall be guilty of treating if he corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat...

Kids voting Parliament today voted against giving 16 and 17 year olds a vote in the EU referendum. Those in favour of reducing the voting age can often be heard saying “it’s their future” and “16 year olds can get married, join the army and have kids so why shouldn’t they be able to vote?” Neither of these arguments is particularly strong.  First, well it is their future… but it’s also my son’s future – he’s five, should he have a vote?  Clearly not since he just about understands that he was born in London let alone that London is the capital of a country called the UK, which is a member of an international organisation called the EU. So, what does my five year old son teach us?  He teaches us that there has to be a cut off.  There will be some children his age who understand that the UK is a country and London is its capital just as there are some 16 year olds who understand what the EU is and are capable of making a mature decision about the UK...