News reaches me that Kevin Pearson’s election leaflets are illegal. (I have also since seen one of his leaflets)
He has not included the imprint on his leaflets. An imprint is added to election material to show who is responsible for its production. It helps to ensure that there is transparency about who is campaigning. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, there are rules about putting imprints on election material. Election material is any material that can be reasonably regarded as intended to promote or procure the election of a candidate at an election.
On printed material such as leaflets and posters, you must include the name and address of: the printer, and the promoter. The promoter is the person who has authorised the material to be printed. This may be the person notified to RMBC as the ‘responsible person’, or someone authorised by them to incur spending. You can use either home or office addresses. It is an offence for a printer or promoter to publish printed election material without an imprint.
Given that Cllr. John Ireland and his wife signed Mr. Pearson’s nomination papers and Cllr. Myles Manship is reported to have had some input into Kevin Pearson’s election leaflets is it not strange nobody mentioned or noticed the lack of an imprint?
The potential consequences of a breach of these requirements are serious. If the promoter of the material or any other person by whom the material is so published or the printer of the document commits this offence, they are liable to a fine of up to £5,000. I understand DC. Philip Butterworth of South Yorkshire Police and Claire Wardle Electoral Services Manager at RMBC are investigating this breach of electoral law.
If Kevin Pearson omits simple important legal information from his election leaflets why does he think he is a suitable candidate for election as a parish councillor?