Dear Editor,
Your recent report, saying that many candidates in the local elections on May 7 have chosen not to publish their home addresses, and that the law has changed, is accurate – but without proper context risks implying that those who opted for privacy have something to hide. The reality is rather different.
For these elections, the nomination form includes a contact‑details sheet for candidates and agents. Electoral Services told me this information is passed directly to the police so they can act swiftly if they receive intelligence of any threat. This is a new development.
The wider context is important. I work part‑time in Richard Quigley MP’s constituency office, where CCTV, reinforced internal doors, panic alarms, security guards at surgeries, and mandatory awareness training are standard. All required by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in response to violence against elected representatives.
There is also the on-line environment. While monitoring posts in a local Facebook group, I encountered material that was racist, xenophobic, or casually violent. One publicly accessible profile included a deliberately posed image intended to project menace.
I considered the on-line vileness: casual suggestions that killing people who are “different” is somehow justified, announcements that Labour voters should be poisoned, and the ongoing security vigilance required in the MP’s office. Against that background I strongly encouraged all candidates to keep their home addresses private. Many candidates tried writing the name of their county division on the nomination paper, but this is not permissible, the only choices are full disclosure or “Isle of Wight council area”.
I do not regret being cautious on behalf of our Labour candidates. Allowing them to keep their addresses private offers a small measure of protection. I hope this explanation helps your readers understand the reasoning.
Phil Attfield, Newport
Election Agent – Isle of Wight East & West Constituency Labour Parties

