Reform uk candidate accused of flouting election law with illicit campaign leaflets

_Byline Times_ is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on ‘what the papers don’t say’ – without fear or favour. TO

SUPPORT ITS WORK, SUBSCRIBE TO THE MONTHLY _BYLINE TIMES _PRINT EDITION, PACKED WITH EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATIONS, NEWS, AND ANALYSIS. Merseyside Police are investigating a Reform UK candidate

accused of breaching election law after distributing campaign leaflets without crucial transparency information, _Byline Times _can reveal. Ken Ferguson, who stood for Reform UK in the

Wirral West constituency and came third, allegedly sent out leaflets missing the required “imprint” – details of who printed and promoted the material – sparking concerns over transparency

and legality. Ferguson won 6,422 votes, easily keeping his deposit with 13% of the vote.  But local resident Michael Thomas sounded the alarm after receiving one of the questionable leaflets

at his Hoylake home on 24 June. He immediately reported it to Merseyside Police, kicking off a frustrating saga of buck-passing between authorities.  “In my mind it’s clearly illegal,”

Thomas told _Byline Times_, adding that voters deserved to know who’s officially behind the campaign materials landing on their doorsteps. The Representation of the People Act 1983 requires

all election materials to carry an imprint, with hefty fines for those who flout the rules. Despite clear guidance from the Electoral Commission that local police should handle such cases,

Merseyside Police initially dismissed the complaint. After persistent follow-ups from Thomas, officers finally investigated. But Thomas suggests they seemed intent on downplaying the issue.

The police allegedly told the complainant it was just a “minor” issue with only a small fine of a “couple of hundred pounds”.  However, failure to include legally-required imprint details is

a breach of section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, the penalty for which is currently an unlimited fine. The police also initially appeared to suggest it was a matter for

the Electoral Commission – which has no enforcement powers in this area. Resident Michael Thomas told this outlet that on 5 July, “two coppers turned up at my house about the report.” “I

was out but my wife gave them the leaflet and I spoke to them on the phone. I pointed out that unlimited fines were not for minor issues and that it was a serious matter. They said they’d

discuss with the sergeant and they would decide if it was in the public interest to do anything.” A spokesperson for Merseyside Police said: “Enquiries are ongoing in relation to this

matter, [we] will update you when we can.”  Candidate Ken Ferguson told _Byline Times_: “I have nothing to say on it.”   Another local voter reported seeing later leaflets with the printer

and promoter stamped on at the bottom, suggesting a last-minute effort to comply with the law. There has been a major public response to Byline Times’ report of ‘super-shy’ Reform UK

parliamentary candidates – exposing concerning legal loopholes and the limits of the role of Electoral Commission Josiah Mortimer and Peter Geoghegan The controversy comes as Reform UK faces

wider scrutiny over its election practices. This outlet has reported extensively on “invisible candidates” with ultra-generic campaign materials.  So-called paper candidates from parties

are common in no-hoper contests, but the number of Reform UK candidates for whom no information can be found out about them online appears to be unprecedented in recent times.  A Reform UK

spokesperson was also contacted for comment. Electoral Commission guidance is clear that “on printed election material such as leaflets and posters, you must include the name and address of

the printer, the promoter, [and] any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter).”  The promoter is whoever has caused the material to be

published. It must also include an address where the promoter can be contacted.  Other voters have expressed their frustration at police forces’ reluctance to investigate election

complaints.  Kate O’Connor, a voter in Oxford, told _Byline Times_ that last year she was involved in a lengthy nine month process, after making a complaint to her local police about an

elleged breach in electoral law. “I had to be dogged in pursuing this and it was only resolved (the law was broken and it was the police’s jurisdiction) after a reporter contacted the police

to verify the situation.  “All that to say, if local people take forward these complaints to police, they may need backup to achieve even acceptance that it’s a police issue. They don’t

seem to know, or want to know, that this is their role,” she said of Thames Valley Police. Voters and candidates have 21 days to bring forward an election petition to challenge a result.

However, the system is rarely used. _BYLINE TIMES_ IS WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH _DEMOCRACY FOR SALE_ AND THE GOOD LAW PROJECT TO INVESTIGATE IRREGULARITIES DURING THE 2024 GENERAL ELECTION

SUBSCRIBERS GET MORE FROM JOSIAH JOSIAH MORTIMER also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of _Byline Times_. So for more from him… ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US

TO PRODUCE MORE Receive the monthly _Byline Times_ newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account. We’re

not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.