An Answer for Quantum Entanglement

An Answer for Quantum Entanglement

“Quantum Information Theorists” are shedding light on entanglement, one of the spooky mysteries of quantum mechanics.

The year 2025 marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of quantum mechanics.

In the century since the field’s inception, scientists and engineers have used quantum mechanics to create technologies such as lasers, MRI scanners and computer chips.

Today, researchers are looking toward building quantum computers and ways to securely transfer information using an entirely new sister field called quantum information science.

But despite creating all these breakthrough technologies, physicists and philosophers who study quantum mechanics still haven’t come up with the answers to some big questions raised by the field’s founders.

Given recent developments in quantum information science, researchers like me are using quantum information theory to explore new ways of thinking about these unanswered foundational questions.

And one direction we’re looking into relates Albert Einstein’s relativity principle to the qubit.

A quantum computer can do some calculations much faster than an ordinary computer.

For example, one device reportedly used 76 entangled qubits to solve a sampling problem 100 trillion times faster than a classical computer.

But the exact force or principle of nature responsible for this quantum entangled state that underlies quantum computing is a big unanswered question.

A solution that my colleagues and I in quantum information theory have proposed has to do with Einstein’s relativity principle.

Quantum superposition and entanglement allow qubits to contain far more information than classical bits.

The relativity principle says that the laws of physics are the same for all observers, regardless of where they are in space, how they’re oriented or how they’re moving relative to each other.

My team showed how to use the relativity principle in conjunction with the principles of quantum information theory to account for quantum entangled particles.

Quantum information theorists like me think about quantum mechanics as a theory of information principles rather than a theory of forces.

That’s very different than the typical approach to quantum physics, in which force and energy are important concepts for doing the calculations.

In contrast, quantum information theorists don’t need to know what sort of physical force might be causing the mysterious behavior of entangled quantum particles.

That gives us an advantage for explaining quantum entanglement because, as physicist John Bell proved in 1964, any explanation for quantum entanglement in terms of forces requires what Einstein called “spooky actions at a distance.”

That’s because the measurement outcomes of the two entangled quantum particles are correlated, even if those measurements are done at the same time and the particles are physically separated by a vast distance.

So, if a force is causing quantum entanglement, it would have to act faster than the speed of light. And a faster-than-light force violates Einstein’s theory of special relativity.

Quantum entanglement is important to quantum computing.

Many researchers are trying to find an explanation for quantum entanglement that doesn’t require spooky actions at a distance, like my team’s proposed solution.

Classical and quantum entanglement

In entanglement, you can know something about two particles collectively, call them particle 1 and particle 2, so that when you measure particle 1, you immediately know something about particle 2.

Imagine you’re mailing two friends, whom physicists typically call Alice and Bob, each one glove from the same pair of gloves.

When Alice opens her box and sees a left-hand glove, she’ll know immediately that when Bob opens the other box he will see the right-hand glove.

Each box and glove combination produces one of two outcomes, either a right-hand glove or a left-hand glove.

There’s only one possible measurement when opening the box, so Alice and Bob have entangled classical bits of information.

But in quantum entanglement the situation involves entangled qubits, which behave very differently than classical bits.

Here is a summary of Qubit behavior.

Consider a property of electrons called spin.

When you measure an electron’s spin using magnets that are oriented vertically, you always get a spin that’s up or down, nothing in between.

That’s a binary measurement outcome, so this is a bit of information.

Now suppose you first measure an electron’s spin vertically and find it is up, then you measure its spin horizontally. When you stand straight up, you don’t move to your right or your left at all.

So, if I measure how much you move side to side as you stand straight up, I’ll get zero.

That’s exactly what you might expect for the vertical spin up electrons.

Since they have vertically oriented spin up, analogous to standing straight up, they should not have any spin left or right horizontally, analogous to moving side to side.

Surprisingly, physicists have found that half of them are horizontally right and half are horizontally left.

Now it doesn’t seem to make sense that a vertical spin up electron has left spin (-1) and right spin (+1) outcomes when measured horizontally, just as we expect no side-to-side movement when standing straight up.

But when you add up all the left (-1) and right (+1) spin outcomes you do get zero, as we expected in the horizontal direction when our spin state is vertical spin up. So, on average, it’s like having no side-to-side or horizontal movement when we stand straight up.

This 50-50 ratio over the binary (+1 and -1) outcomes is what physicists are talking about when they say that a vertical spin up electron is in a quantum superposition of horizontal spins left and right.

Entanglement from the relativity principle explained:

According to quantum information theory, all of quantum mechanics, to include its quantum entangled states, is based on the qubit with its quantum superposition.

What my colleagues and I proposed is that this quantum superposition results from the relativity principle, which (again) states the laws of physics are the same for all observers with different orientations in space.

If the electron with a vertical spin in the up direction were to pass straight through the horizontal magnets as you might expect, it would have no spin horizontally.

This would violate the relativity principle, which says the particle should have a spin regardless of whether it’s being measured in the horizontal or vertical direction.

As an electron with a vertical spin in the up direction does have a spin when measured horizontally, quantum information theorists can say that the relativity principle is (ultimately) responsible for quantum entanglement.

And since there is no force used in this principle explanation, there are none of the “spooky actions at a distance” that Einstein derided.

With quantum entanglement’s technological implications for quantum computing firmly established, it’s nice to know that one big question about its origin may be answered with a highly regarded physics principle.

The double slit experiment

The double slit experiment was first performed by Thomas Young in 1801, as a demonstration of the wave nature of light. He used a coherent light source, such as sunlight or a candle, and passed it through a narrow slit in a card. Then he placed another card with two parallel slits close to the first one, and observed the light pattern on a screen behind the second card. He expected to see two bright spots on the screen, corresponding to the two slits, but instead he saw a series of bright and dark fringes, called an interference pattern. This meant that the light waves passing through the two slits interfered with each other, creating regions of constructive and destructive interference. This was evidence that light was not made of particles, as Isaac Newton had proposed, but of waves, as Christiaan Huygens had suggested.

However, with the development of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century, it was discovered that light could also behave like particles, called photons. In 1905, Albert Einstein explained the photoelectric effect by assuming that light was composed of discrete packets of energy that could knock electrons out of metals. In 1924, Louis de Broglie proposed that matter could also have wave properties, and derived a relation between the wavelength and momentum of any particle. In 1927, Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer, and independently George Thomson and Alexander Reid, confirmed this hypothesis by showing that electrons could produce interference patterns when scattered by crystals. Later, it was shown that atoms and molecules could also exhibit wave-particle duality.

The double slit experiment was then repeated with single photons or electrons, one at a time. Surprisingly, even when only one particle was sent through the slits at a time, an interference pattern still emerged on the screen after many repetitions. This meant that each particle somehow interfered with itself, as if it went through both slits at once. However, if detectors were placed at the slits to observe which slit each particle passed through, the interference pattern disappeared. This showed that the act of measurement affected the outcome of the experiment, and that the particle's behavior depended on whether it was observed or not. This phenomenon is known as quantum superposition and collapse, and it implies that quantum systems exist in a state of uncertainty until they are measured.

The experiment has profound implications for our understanding of reality and the nature of observation. It challenges our classical intuition and forces us to accept that reality is not deterministic but probabilistic at the quantum level.

The double slit experiment was first performed by Thomas Young in 1801, as a demonstration of the wave nature of light. He used a coherent light source, such as sunlight or a candle, and passed it through a narrow slit in a card. Then he placed another card with two parallel slits close to the first one, and observed the light pattern on a screen behind the second card. He expected to see two bright spots on the screen, corresponding to the two slits, but instead he saw a series of bright and dark fringes, called an interference pattern. This meant that the light waves passing through the two slits interfered with each other, creating regions of constructive and destructive interference. This was evidence that light was not made of particles, as Isaac Newton had proposed, but of waves, as Christiaan Huygens had suggestedHowever, with the development of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century, it was discovered that light could also behave like particles, called photons. In 1905, Albert Einstein explained the photoelectric effect by assuming that light was composed of discrete packets of energy that could knock electrons out of metals. In 1924, Louis de Broglie proposed that matter could also have wave properties, and derived a relation between the wavelength and momentum of any particle. In 1927, Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer, and independently George Thomson and Alexander Reid, confirmed this hypothesis by showing that electrons could produce interference patterns when scattered by crystals. Later, it was shown that atoms and molecules could also exhibit wave-particle duality.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?

Enfield CLP meeting ended up in Chaos – One person to blame – Assistant Chair

There were strange scenes were happened in Enfield CLP meeting last night.  Yesterday 8th of December 2016 CLP convened to discuss year end statement from sitting Labour MP for Enfield North Joan Ryan and also to discuss 2 motions forwarded by mark French (See it here) and Lorraine Wilson. (See it here).

As we did expect chair Mr Peter gave enough time to first reports of the day and to the speech of Joan Ryan. Joan Ryan did a good speech. She asked our support for the next general election and underlined the importance of winning Enfield North. She claimed Jeremy Corbyn would not walk into Number 10 or labour will not be in power if we were to loose Enfield North. None of disagree with her.

Mark French contributed with good response to Joan Ryan requesting everyone to support battle to save the NHS.

Chair gave extra time to question and answer session fro Joan Ryan's statement. It seems chair was trying to drag on time to limit the time for motions. When the motions taken into discuss chair Peter Lamb said we need a quorum. Total number of members are 980 and there should be 10% of members present in the hall. We had only 66. This 10% rule adopted by the CLP few months ago claimed Chair. He also said they did pass certain motions without these numbers before. He admitted to that. He claimed that in this occasion issue we are discussing is suspension of two members. He does not want it to discuss unless we have enough people.

Maria Maccaul questioned that stand as well as Mark French, Ron Reader and others. They wanted motion to be-discussed at the meeting. Chair wanted to discuss it in another meeting.  A councillor then got up, sternly addressed Mark French and said he should have knocked the doors of the people, and get them to come to the meeting in order to pass such a motion. He forgot that it is Secretary Gina and EC should have informed the members not Mark French.

Then Mark French got up and put forward a no confidence motion on chair. All hell broke loose. Joan Ryan was visibly angry. According to her, this is unprecedented and wrong. However, chair seem to work according to the rules and appointed vice chair to arrange the no confidence motion. Vice chair flatly refused. He accused mark French and others as nasty people who ignored Peter Lamb's work as a chair. He directly and arrogantly attacked members who put forward the motions. He insulted everyone who disagreed with him. He got up again and again to ridicule and humiliate Mark French and other members who facing this adverse situation kept calm and dignity.

After his refusal chair moved a motion, which no one can hear, some people in the front row voted for something we have no idea what for. Chair moved to do deliver the raffle ticket results.

Charles then spoke and condemn the behaviour of Vice Chair and he got a big applause.

People left the room.

This is undeniably nasty piece of work by Joan Ryan and her trusted lieutenant Siddo. They should apologise to CLP and Labour members for this appalling behaviour. Siddo should step down from his position immediately.

Boundary Changes - Deadline for submission is 5th of December

Dear All,

It was good to see you at the Enfield North CLP All Members Meeting last week. 

Thank you very much for agreeing to provide a written submission to the Boundary Commission for England’s (BCE) consultation on the Parliamentary constituency boundary review. 

Please see the documents attached. 

I thought it would be useful to provide you with a briefing note on the written submission process, which includes:

• general information on the BCE consultation;
• how you can have your say on the initial proposals;
• how the BCE’s initial proposals affect Enfield North, and the Borough of Enfield as a whole;
• the Labour Party’s counter proposals for Enfield North, and the Borough of Enfield as a whole; and
•  some of the factors to bear in mind when making your submission.

Also attached is the BCE's report on their initial proposals and a map of what the Enfield North constituency would look like under the Labour Party’s plans. 

Whilst it is important to support Labour’s counter proposals, you certainly do not have to discuss every aspect of their revisions, given that they are suggesting a number of changes to the wards in Enfield North. Please feel free to concentrate on a particular area or ward. 

You may want to make the case for why Grange or Highlands ward for example (which are both part of the BCE’s initial proposals for Enfield North, but not in Labour’s plans) have more in common, in terms of socio-economic and environmental factors, with the Enfield Southgate constituency, or why a ward like Ponders End, with its strong historical links to Enfield North, should become part of our constituency again. 

The deadline to provide your written submission is Monday 5^th December 2016, but it would be great if you could submit your written submission to the BCE as early as possible. We need to ensure everything is submitted, and our case is made, in good time.   

I would really appreciate it if, once it has been submitted, you could let me know and provide me with a copy too. 

For further information on all of the above, you can take a look at the BCE’s consultation website here: https://www.bce2018.org.uk/

Any questions, please get in touch.

Best wishes,

Joan

Rt. Hon Joan Ryan MP

Letter to Enfield CLP Secretary Gina Needs about future voting in CLP by Mark French

Dear Gina,

Since the last all members meeting took place on 13 October 2016 i have been approached by a number of Enfield North CLP members, all voicing their dissatisfaction at the way the vote for London Regional conference delegates and Regional Board nominees was conducted, asking me to make this clear to the EC and to put forward their ideas for ensuring that it doesn't happen again. I would like this raised at the next EC meeting.

The point raised with me by these comrades all boil down to what they see as the following issues:

Firstly, some members did not receive notification and were thus unaware of the 13 October 2016 meeting. I'm sure that everyone would agree that this is highly unsatisfactory and must not be allowed to happen again.

However, in relation to the meeting itself there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the way that the election of conference delegates and Regional Board nominees was conducted.

The ballot papers did not seem to be in any particular order, and some were blank bits of paper. The reason given for this was that it was because the printer had broken down before all the ballot papers could be printed off. This in and of itself would be enough to undermine confidence in the ballot procedure. In such circumstances, calling off the ballot until a later date should have been considered and put to the members present at the meeting to decide.

In my view the ballot should have been postponed to a later date, when a full set of printed ballot forms were available. A decision about this should have been made by a show of hands of all those present. Unfortunately it wasn't. In hindsight i think that this contributed to a feeling of unfairness on the part of many present at the meeting. It did nothing to allay any feelings of mistrust that may exist following the recent leadership election.

The ballot papers were not individually numbered, making it impossible to say with certainty that the ballot forms sent out were the same ones that were received back. This alone can seriously undermine confidence in the integrity of the results and contribute to an atmosphere of mistrust in the CLP.

The way the votes were counted was also unsatisfactory and did nothing to instil confidence that things were being done in a fair and impartial way. The counting exercise itself did not take place in a part of the meeting room that was sufficiently visible to all of those present. In my opinion it should have been conducted on the stage area, albeit at a table that is separated from the Chair and CLP Secretary.

Before and during the hustings, and before the ballot papers were collected by the tellers, printed slips of paper were being distributed containing a slate or list of the preferred candidates of certain of the EC members. It is not clear that this practise is within the Labour Party rules.

During the count all communication between the head teller and the Chair should have been in the open and in public. It was clear that there were several private conversations between them before, during and after a series of recounts, and before the results were announced. The members were thus not kept fully informed during the counting. This contributed to a feeling of there being a lack of transparency in the way the ballot was being conducted.

When the count was finally concluded Doug Taylor, Enfield Council Labour Group leader announced that the votes for two of the Regional Conference delegates were mixed up with those for the womens' delegates. Then, when a challenge to the validity of the election process itself was made from the floor by a CLP member, along with a proposal to abandon the ballot and re-run it online, the Chair continued without any attempt at first of all canvassing the views of all those present.

This also raises the question why the casting of votes for conference delegates was separated out on a gender basis at all. As far as i understand there was merely a requirement that two out of the CLP's three delegates must be women. There was no requirement that one of the delegates had to be a man rather than a woman. We could have elected three women delegates if we had wanted to. This choice was not given to the CLP members due to the way that the ballot papers were drawn up.

I hope never to see such poorly managed CLP elections again. It is vital that all business conducted in Enfield North CLP is carried out in a transparent, fair and inclusive way. Unfortunately the last meeting left an unsavoury perception of unfairness which must never be repeated.

It would therefore assist in maintaining the confidence of CLP members in the fairness and integrity of the conduct of voting at future meetings that the following measures are introduced:

A count/tally made of all those present at the meeting.

Numbered ballot forms distributed to each person, to ensure that they match the numbers of people present in the room.

Election of tellers by show of hands

Counting of votes to be done at a table on the stage/platform, in front of and in full view of everybody, and with all tellers present.

Making it clear that meeting will remain open until the votes are counted and announced.

In addition, although i'm sure that meeting notices are sent out to the members correctly and this should in no way be seen as a criticism of you personally, i think that in order to ensure maximum member participation at future meetings, confirmation of receipt of meetings notifications should requested in the outgoing email. Members should be requested to reply. Then any that don't respond can be contacted again. This would greatly reduce incidents of members not being kept fully informed of events and would help maintain a healthy atmosphere within the CLP, free of any feelings of suspicion or mistrust.

I would be grateful if you could both confirm receipt of this email communication, and that you will submit it to the EC for discussion.

Yours comradely

Mark French
Enfield North CLP

‪#‎Democracy‬ is under attack

‪#‎Democracy‬ is under attack

Just reflecting on the past week as a Labour Party member.

The media as we know do not want to report anything positive about anyone supporting Jeremy Corbyn.

The disloyal PLP are given daily access to national media which hardly ever puts them under serious scrutiny.

The events surrounding the Labour Party National Executive Committee (NEC) beggared belief. The erosion of democracy by the instigation of a secret ballot was an indicator of what was to come. I am clear that if you are elected to a position then how you vote on issues needs to be transparent for members. After all we can see how MPs voted on the war in Iraq, or bombing Syria.

But the secret ballot was just the beginning, the attack on democracy within the Labour Party took an even more sinister turn when over 150 thousand new members lost their right to vote. But is got worse, confusion as to how you could still vote began to emerge. The confusion was clear to see from posts on social media. Increasingly requests for clarity were being sought and even now it is not clear. "Job well done" for those who are responsible for this attack on democracy. For a party that should be fighting inequality it was with great shame I read they were going to offer a last minute deal of £25 to vote in the leadership election.

Better people than me , FBU leader Matt Wrack for instance have condemned this decision which will exclude the low paid, disabled, students and pensioners.

Why are they doing this? Lots of reasons, the first is to dishearten new members into leaving the Labour Party. Their actions feed into the negative perceptions the public have of politicians. This is very very dangerous for democracy. Be clear their policy is to shrink the membership. Their coup demonstrated their contempt for the membership.

The Trade Unions have been told to get into line with the decision to close the door on getting a vote via joining a union. This is after Unite tried to secure a opportunity for their members to vote.

But the attacks on democracy didnt stop.

Their next move was to issue a diktat to in effect close down the Labour Party until after the Leadership elections.

For those new members to the Labour Party, please note, this decision is without precedent. It is an outrageous attempt to prevent Labour Party members to carry out legitimate business in their communities. There are some caveats which allow meetings to be convened. But be very clear this act, in my opinion as a member is bullying and intimidating.

But, it still isn't over there is more.

Rumours are circulating (I would be happy to hear I've they are not true) that there are members of the Labour Party trawling through social media looking for evidence to deny a member from voting. If this is true, who are they and who appointed them? What procedure are they following? How can it be challenged? I have seen elected members leaving unpleasant comments on social media, have they been prevented from voting?

Brighton & Hove Labour Party, apparently the biggest in the country. They have been suspended and they will not be allowed to nominate any of the candidates for the leadership elections. Their crime? They democratically elected a new executive to run the branch. Democracy apparently is not a good thing, the new executive members voted in have been turfed out and those voted out have been brought back in. What for is not clear since the branch is closed down. I think you can all guess which of the leadership candidates the majority of this branch support.

I maybe wrong but the public reasons given for in effect closing down grassroots Labour Party branches is that there is a serious risk to safety of members.

Let's get this out of the way. No abusive bullying intimidating behaviour should be tolerated in the Labour Party. Each case should be investigated thoroughly and transparently.

So back to the blanket ban, as I write these words I still find it difficult that this has happened.

The ban has been fuelled by actions attributed to Jeremy Corbyn supporters even if there is no evidence of these claims. As I have said the press are not subjecting any anti Jeremy stories to any scrutiny. To the effect that it must appear to the public there are mass brawls in Labour Party meetings across the country.

We know this is not the case , what we know if that Labour Party meetings are being held and publicity support for Jeremy and condemning the actions of the PLP.

There have been a couple of high profile acts of intimidation that I believe have been used to close down the Labour Party.

The first is the brick through the window of Angela Eagles office. I may be wrong but this story broke at the same time as she launched her campaign.

Like many others I saw the window heard the word brick and just shook my head in anger. Who did this, why, what did they think they would achieve by this unacceptable behaviour.

The national media turned on Jeremy, even though there had been no evidence that it was carried out by person who supported Jeremy. Jeremy condemned the act as he had always done. But the damage was done, a link to Corbyn supporters had been established without any evidence.

The second big story was another Angela Eagle story that she had to cancel a meeting in a Luton due to threats to the Hotel.

Another big story were allegations of intimidation and homophobia at Angela Eagles constituency Labour Party meeting.

All three stories have subsequently been put under scrutiny, but not by national media.

1. There are reports that the hotel are saying they did not receive any threats which contradicts what was reported in the national media.

2. Angela Eagles CLP: It has now been reported that Angela was not at the meeting and that the allegations of abusive behaviour at the meeting were completely unfounded.

3. Brick through the window. This I think was the most quoted story and perhaps fuelled the confidence that a decision to close down the Labour Party would be understood. Yesterday I watched a video produced allegedly outside Angela Eagles office. What it reveals is deeply worrying
http://youtu.be/ppnKHmuVA1s

I have never been to this office, if this video is not of the office in the building then the CLP needs to challenge this video. But if this video is true, then the public have been misled.

I thought a brick had been thrown through the office in a room where staff could have been working. But the broken window with the placard that has been all over national media is according to this video no where near the Labour Party office and the evidence looks like someone trying to gain access to the building. The video claims Police are no longer investigating this crime. I have not read any evidence that connected the broken window to the Labour Party.

I am sure many members watching this video will like me be shocked and concerned about this and other allegations which have been made and no doubt contributed to closing down our party.

Democracy within our party is a fundamental issue and gat is why I would like a statement from all potential leadership candidates

" Will you call on the NEC to rescind the decision to close down the Labour Party & the decision to disenfranchise new members from voting in the leadership elections from immediate effect."

John Burgess

HOLD THE BBC TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST JEREMY CORBYN

TO: OFCOM AND THE BBC

HOLD THE BBC TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST JEREMY CORBYN

28,376
of 30,000 signatures

Campaign created by
Maria Patrick

OFCOM is the independent regulator of the communications industry and is now responsible for holding the BBC to account should it fail to adhere to certain Broadcasting Codes.

The BBC needs to be held to account for the spiteful and manipulative coverage of Jeremy Corbyn following the EU referendum and during the leadership coup, which is grossly in breach of Section 5 of the Broadcasting Code - Section 5 covering "Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions", and Section 7 which covers fairness.

****PLEASE NOTE: THIS PETITION HAS BEEN AMENDED - ONLY TO REFLECT NEW INFORMATION RECEIVED REGARDING REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BBC.****

Why is this important?

The BBC's news coverage of Jeremy Corbyn has always been overtly biased against him and his leadership of the Labour Party, but following the EU referendum and the subsequent leadership challenge BBC news coverage of Jeremy has degenerated into journalism which is nothing short of bullying, smear, lies and distortion. This is in clear breach of rule 7.1 of the Broadcasting Code to "avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes"

Article 5.13 of the Broadcasting Codes states that 'Broadcasters should not give undue prominence to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy..." Undue prominence being "a significant imbalance of views aired within coverage of matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy."

This code has not been adhered to and the BBC coverage, on both TV and radio, of Jeremy has been relentless, crass and of the lowest standard. There are now more and more incidences of the BBC misrepresenting the facts by cherry-picking and by omission, and it can't be allowed to continue.

The most shocking attacks on Jeremy, however, have arisen as a result of the challenge to his leadership. By giving it a significantly imbalanced proportion of airtime, the BBC is broadcasting a significant imbalance of viewpoints.
By allowing former members of Jeremy's cabinet to resign LIVE on air BBC news reporting has become nothing more than car-crash journalism and should be saved for reality TV and gossip magazines.

In supporting the leadership challenge by giving it '"undue prominence of views and opinions" the BBC is effectively helping to undermine democratic process .
By giving undue attention and airtime to this leadership challenge they are sending a message to the people - that 'democratic process' is there to be ignored when it suits the agenda of the establishment.

We pay £145.50 per year through our TV licences to fund the BBC. We DO NOT want our £145.50 to be paying for this kind of 'tabloid-esque' propaganda. The BBC is not acting in compliance with article 5 of the Broadcasting Code and should therefore be held to account.

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION SO I CAN FORWARD THEM A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE BBC THAT THEY CAN'T IGNORE.

How it will be delivered

In writing to both OFCOM and the BBC

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/hold-the-bbc-to-account-for-it-s-smear-campaign-on-jeremy-corbyn