UK Politics

5367 readers

153 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Reform Matt Goodwin byelection leaflet "error" (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 22 hours ago by tenebrisnox@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Matt Goodwin, Reform UK’s candidate in the Gorton and Denton byelection, will not face a sanction for leaflets that omitted the party’s imprint, after a high court judge accepted this was due to an inadvertent printing error.

Reform admitted that it sent about 81,000 leaflets to the constituency’s voters from a “concerned neighbour”, which did not state they had been funded and distributed by the party.

Haven't they pulled this stunt before?

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like there's a judge who needs sacking.

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Reading the article, it sounds like the document they sent to the printing company had the legally required asset, but the printing company changed the font which caused it not to print.

I'm assuming that they had someone from the printing company give evidence showing that it was their error and that the judge didn't just take Reforms lawyer for their word... I hope.

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, because printing companies change the font after you proofed the document all the time.

The article doesn't say what evidence the judge actually saw to support Reform's claim.

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 hours ago

And we're supposed to believe that Goodwin's team checked it multiple times before printing, but didn't notice or care that the printed version had a different font?