Talk:Sharon Ebanks

Please refrain from omitting significant information - or alternatively delete this page. W4evw 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

The information previously included in this article was not accurate, and presented a picture which I believe not even the BNP are defending any more. I have amended the article to give a more accurate account, and I'll set out the inaccuracies here to forestall any attempts at reversion.

"The following day, the Birmingham elections office announced a further recount of the votes had taken place (in secret and in the absence of Police, candidates and agents of all other parties)."

No they didn't - they announced they had miscalculated the result by double-counting the 'mixed' votes (see amended version in the article) and that this had produced the wrong result. They discovered this because the total vote for each candidate did not tally with the total votes cast. No formal recount took place out of sight of the parties. The only recount that did happen, happened at the high court, following the presengint of the election petition.

"It was claimed some 2,367 votes had been counted twice (including just under 1000 votes cast in support of Ebanks) and the Labour candidate was declared the winner."

No they weren't - it was declared that the Labour candidate ought to have been elected, but that as the result had already been declared, it could not be rescinded until the result was challenged with an Election Petition. This was why Ebanks actually briefly served as a councillor between May and July 2006.

"Ms Ebanks believed there was impropriety and challenged the result in the High Court, where, on 26 July 2006 the High Court confirmed that the result would stand as there had been a miscount"

No she didn't, and no it didn't. It was the *Labour* candidate Catharine Grundy who challenged the result, because as stated above this was the only way that Ebanks's election could be overturned. The High Court did not 'confirm the result would stand' - it granted the petition, thus overturning the result as originally declared, and awarding the seat to the Labour candidate.

I believe that the BNP made quite a fuss about this initially but subsequently both Ebanks and the BNP appeared to accept the Council's account of events.

I hope this summary has helped explain why I have made these edits. Simonk133 21:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

I removed the link to Lee Barnes which lnks to a deceased American pole-vaulter of the same name. Lee Barnes of the BNP represented a BNP member in a discrimination case Baggs v.Fudge, in which he was criticized for apparently leaving his 52 page submission at home. Ebanks was incensed that he encouraged her to fight the case, resulting in 5000 pounds costs awarded against her which nearly left her bankrupt.--Streona (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC) [reply ]