Letter: Why I Withheld My Address from Nomination Form

Published on: 1 Jun, 2017
Updated on: 1 Jun, 2017

From Semi Essessi

independent parliamentary candidate, currently standing for election

In response to a comment from Barbara Ford under the article: Six Guildford Candidates Nominated for the General Election

The nomination announcement is not intended to be a source of information on candidates.

In response to your specific concern I initially withheld the information out of concern for my neighbours in the building I share.

After realising this might be an issue I further conferred with them, and two of the ten I was able to speak to on that day did not feel comfortable with me publicising my address in case it might attract some unwanted attention.

As much as I disagree with their position, I can not ignore the wishes of my neighbours, even if a majority disagree with them. That majority will not suffer or feel their trust betrayed but those two people who expressed concern might, if I disregarded their wishes.

I would wonder how many other candidates have such concern for their neighbours, or even made a thinking decision about whether to publish an address themselves rather than allowing others to make that decision for them? I would suspect that not one of them filled out the paperwork themselves, nor paid their own deposit, nor sought signatures of support, and I can confirm from first hand experience that none of them graced the electoral office with their presence when it was asked of them (although, in their defence, two bothered to send their representatives).

The nomination form in full:

Responses to Letter: Why I Withheld My Address from Nomination Form

Martin Elliott Reply

June 1, 2017 at 11:58 am

This seems to be a reasonable response.

Pity such an explanation is not given when sitting councillors of Surrey County Council or Guildford Borough Council and GBC have home/business details redacted, without published reason, from the registers of interests.

At least some have the grace to give an alternative, such as the previous police commissioner who gave an office at Imber Court, the Metropolitan Police Sports Club, or the local party office.

Strangely one did put his home address on nomination papers for SCC recently, though still redacted on the registers.
Of course, some would wonder how councillors on cabinets and committees, especially when “double hatters”, can have time to have real jobs to supplement their small allowances.
Semi Essessi Reply

June 1, 2017 at 5:00 pm

Just to provide some more information here, I would point to the nominations in Surrey Heath, in which every candidate kept their address off of the paperwork:

https://www.guildford.gov.uk/media/24454/Statement-of-Persons-Nominated-Surrey-Heath/pdf/Statement_of_Persons_Nominated_-_Surrey_Heath

Also two of the candidates for Mole Valley:

https://www.guildford.gov.uk/media/24457/Situation-of-Polling-Station-Notice-Mole-Valley/pdf/Situation_of_Polling_Station_Notice_Mole_Valley
Mark Bray-Parry Reply

June 4, 2017 at 8:34 pm

I would like to refute some assumptions Semi Essessi has made about other candidates.

I paid my deposit, collected signatures, filled out the paperwork, delivered it to the council. I had to send my apologies for the meeting as I was treating a patient. It was not from a lack of care. I also certainly do not publish my address without full consideration of the potential consequences to my family or neighbours.

I don’t think it is appropriate for him to make such suggestion without any reason other than a prejudice about party candidates.

Mark Bray-Parry is the Green Party candidate for Guildford in the general election.
Nick Trier Reply

June 6, 2017 at 10:15 am

Semi Essessi is fully entitled to withhold his address from publication. He is equally entitled to stand for election on payment of the £500 deposit which he can clearly afford to lose as he has no hope of securing 5% of the vote.

However, it is wrong of him to impute base motives to other candidates who have disclosed their addresses. Our democracy is not generally well served by secrecy. The more transparency that can be achieved the better.