My thanks to John, Lesley and Sidney for their replies.
John made a fair point -- indeed, after posting my original
mail (i.e. sometime early this morning) I wondered whether
I had myself mis-read the news item. So I checked; not so!

Many thanks to Sidney for her comprehensive citation of the
"Candidates and Agent Manual". This does seem to make it pretty
clear what is required under law, and specifically that nobody
engaged in handling the postal votes should become aware of
what votes were actually cast.

Sections 5.8 and 5.9 (see Sidney's post) seem to make it
clear that vote-counting of postial votes should not take
place prior to the main count -- indeed, that postal votes
verified as valid should simply be mixed in with "normal"
votes for counting "on the night". This would seem to be
at variance with what Lesley wrote:

  "Talking to my colleagues who have been doing postal votes,
   what happens here is that votes are checked and sorted
   into constituencies first, and the count will be done
   before the main count is added to it."

Or maybe "count" here was a misunderstanding relating to
[Section 5.8] "The valid ballot papers (not the votes) will
   be counted and the total number will be recorded."
as opposed to
[Section 5.9] "Once the contents of at least one polling station
   ballot box have been verified at the count [?venue], the postal
   ballot papers can be mixed with the ballot papers from that
   box before being counted in the normal manner, as detailed
   later in this chapter."

It is interesting (see BBC link below) that Kerry McCarthy,
"Bristol East candidate and party 'Twitter tsar'" is also
"Labour's new media campaigns spokeswoman. The role involves
improving the party's use of social media websites ahead
of the election."

"Improving" -- ironic, that! It would seem that her enthusiasm
for that rôle over-rode her inclination to consult the rules,
as in the "Candidates and Agent Manual". In theory, she could be
charged (even prior to the Election) with breach of Section 66
of the RPA 1983. What is the position of a candidate charged
with a criminal offence just prior to an election?

Best wishes to all,
Ted.

On 29-Apr-10 23:37:56, Ted Harding wrote:
> Evening all!
> I have just heard the news about the Labour candidate for
> Bristol East who revealed "a sample of postal votes on the
> social networking website Twitter". See:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8652724.stm
> 
> "She explained: 'On hearing the results of a random and unscientific
> sample of postal votes, I posted them on Twitter.'"
> 
> So, it appears, people have been looking at postal votes before
> the count?
> 
> How come that is possible? Anyone know?
> 
> Ted.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
> Date: 30-Apr-10                                       Time: 00:37:53
> ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 30-Apr-10                                       Time: 12:25:55
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************