The headline and the first few paragraphs are dedicated to Arron’s allegation that a “smear campaign” was launched against him, referring readers to punditry.ca as evidence. (To be clear to new visitors, I believe he’s not alleging that the site itself is orchestrating a campaign, or the pundits, but rather that evidence of such a campaign may be seen on this site given its role as a nexus of election information. No hate mail, please.)
It’s not clear from the article which of the offences was caused or perpetrated by the smear campaign, or if that is just a parenthetical remark. (Arron took to Twitter to clarify that this was a secondary comment; we’ve reached out to him to offer to publish in full his case).
They largely ignored my comments on working-around-the-rules appeals, which is fair as I was not optimistic about most of them. Beale in particular blames an unregistered volunteer who was not aware of the rules; Arron variously notes there is no specific prohibition against campaigning in residence, that his posts weren’t campaigning, that the video is owned by an independent director not the DSU, and that his website could not have had any impact on the election. The Gazette article has details.
Update 02/26: Jamie Arron has put up a website detailing his appeals.