▲ 2 ▼ Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin will not face sanctions over byelection leaflet error (www.theguardian.com) submitted 8 months ago by realcaseyrollins@narwhal.city to c/news@hilariouschaos.com comment fedilink hide all child comments High court judge accepts material distributed without legally required imprint due to inadvertent printing mistake https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/25/reform-uk-matt-goodwin-sanction-byelection-leaflet-error
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 7 points 8 months ago (3 children) Sounds like there's a judge who needs sacking. permalink fedilink source hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 4 points 8 months ago (2 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 months 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 4 points 8 months ago (2 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 months 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 months 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 months 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? permalink fedilink source parent
no comments (yet)