Talk:Sharon Ebanks

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled[edit]

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]