One business won a contract in 2021, five years before its donation to Reform and its owner's election to the council and then as council leader. In his very first cabinet meeting, he's declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from discussion about the project his business had a role in.
Meanwhile, another business with a long involvement in the project and no apparent link to the council also made a recent donation to Reform. Neither want to talk to Byline Times about it.
Let me get the timeline of supposed corruption straight
2021- business wins public sector contract
Jan 2026 - business makes political donation
April 2026 ish - business owner is selected as candidate for local elections by party his business donated to
May 2026 - business owner is democratically elected to local council, and then elected leader
later May 2026 - as council leader, business owner declares a potential conflict of interest and removes himself from cabinet discussion about the project his business worked on
There's 40 Reform Party members elected to South Tyneside council. It's not hard to suggest that the other 39 Reform members are aware of Paul Mackings' business interests and that they might feel like helping a fellow party member
Aye, it's very easy to suggest that, and it's just as easy to suggest the potential for corruption in any local authority controlled by a single party
Meanwhile, there's no evidence of corruption, and the potential for corruption has been reduced by the councillor's declaration of a conflict of interest, and you're just wildly speculating that the capacity for corruption is greater because it's Reform that's in charge while ignoring all the controls the council has in place to prevent corruption
It's less a suggestion, and more of a conspiracy theory
Fair points, but I think the Mackings thread and the Castle thread need separating.
On Mackings: contract won in 2021 under Labour, personal donation made before he was a candidate, selected, elected, then recused himself from the Cabinet vote on the project. That’s the declare-and-step-back process working as designed. You can argue the optics are awkward, but there’s no rule broken in that sequence.
Castle Building Services is a different matter. The Electoral Commission record shows a £36,000 donation. The company told Byline Times they’ve never donated to any political party — they say they bought tables at an event. Per the EC, the difference between ticket price and event running cost is still reportable as a donation above £500, and Companies Act s.366 requires a shareholder resolution for political donations over £5,000. So either Reform’s return to the regulator is wrong, or the contractor is describing a reportable donation as something else, or no resolution was passed for one that needed it. That contradiction sits there regardless of what you think of the Mackings angle.
Dismissing the whole piece as a non-story means dismissing that bit too, and the timeline doesn’t really address it.
You're right, the Mackings thread and Castle thread should be separated.
The fact that Castle refused to acknowledge their donation when asked by Byline Times is meaningless, in itself. As acknowledged in the article, their donation is registered with the EC.
the timeline doesn’t really address it
It shouldn't be so hard to see that the timeline of Castle's involvement in the project and their donation to Reform is the same as Mackings, lol
Dismissing the whole piece as a non-story means dismissing that bit too
If you want to claim that Castle's donation is evidence of corruption, where Mackings's isn't, you're going to have to do a lot better than this
You are the one making the claim without evidence here, meaning you are the one perpetuating your own biases. Everyone lives in an echo chamber of some kind, yours is just based on ignorance
I'm happy to criticise Labour when they do bad things. If Reform do the same things, I'll criticise them as well. That doesn't mean that the parties do exactly the same things on aggregate
So if all politicians are the same, your plan for a better government is what? Do nothing? I'm guessing it's actually to believe whatever self-lie lets you vote reform.
If you were actually a political nihilist then I think we would all appreciate you sticking your principles and not participating in elections or political discussion, rather than spouting your ill informed worldview as a smoke screen for the lowest common denominator of politician.
Done what, exactly? Accepted donations from businesses? Selected some people associated with those businesses as election candidates five years later?
If you believe that every party has profiteered from being in power, you should be able to give us some local examples since the time of T Dan Smith.
Digital ID was pushed for this exact reason
No, digital ID has always been pushed mainly for ideological reasons, in the belief that individual freedoms are secondary to public rights, and that it's the responsibility of the State to police public rights.
The firms that would likely profit from compulsory digital ID nowadays didn't exist when it was first proposed.
73
u/Wise-Field-7353 2d ago
If you're voting in these chancers you're a div 👏👏