In its dying days perhaps the election campaign for regional councillor is coming alive. 
Newmarket Today prints a trenchant letter from William Dyer who tells their readers why he will not be voting for me.
Good for him!
He has at least been in touch - unlike my opponent, Tom Vegh, who is afraid to debate with me.
William Dyer had an email exchange with me a few days ago, asking me to comment on a vandalised election sign. Here it is:
October 16 – 6.27pm - William Dyer to me
Hello, Mr. Prentice.
My name is William Dyer and, save for an eleven-month stretch 15 years ago, I am a life-long resident of Newmarket. You knocked on my door the other week and we had what I would characterize as a bizarre interaction. You initiated the conversation by telling me how you wanted more of your signs on Gorham Street because of the traffic, somehow assuming that I'd let you utilize my lawn for your campaign with neither a hint as to what you might do as Deputy Mayor and Regional Councillor nor an acknowledgement that my lawn already featured a Tom Vegh campaign sign. Furthermore, while you didn't mention a single issue or policy for which you stood, you did assert that Mr. Vegh's campaign was routinely placing their signs on lawns of people who had not agreed to having such. I had already visited your blog a handful of times before you came knocking and could see that you are a single-issue candidate and that issue is beating your opponent. Frankly, that strikes me as a terrible issue on which to run, especially at the municipal level. Mr. McFadden, the editor at The Era, seemed to understand this when he rejected your attempt to submit a written statement and platform, something that you don't seem to understand as you wear that rejection as a badge of honour on your blog. You're also oddly comfortable explaining away your own expressly fraudulent expenses scandal while hammering on Mr. Vegh's less-that-obviously-wrong expenses issue from the last election cycle.
Now, to the primary reason for this email message: I wonder if you care to comment on this sign placement (image attached). I came across it this afternoon at the corner of Gorham and Hamilton Streets. It seems to be on a public street corner as the adjacent house has positioned their Ward Councillor sign on the other side of the driveway, separated from where these two signs were placed. It also seems unlikely to me that this house would agree to both a Vegh and a Prentice sign. It does seem to me like something someone who wants more visibility than their opponent on Gorham Street might do.
Frankly, I find this appalling (and, if my understanding of municipal election rules serves, illegal). Your obsession with Mr. Vegh has been apparent for months now, but this goes a bit far, wouldn't you say? I wonder: is this how campaigns are conducted in Lancashire?
Take care,
William Dyer.
October 16 – 9.07pm - Me to William Dyer
Good evening Mr Dyer
Lots of people have taken my signs to go up alongside ones placed earlier by Tom Vegh’s people.
I don’t see that as a problem.
Gordon Prentice
October 16 – 10.12pm - William Dyer to me
Hello, Mr. Prentice.
Just so we're clear: when asked to comment on a photograph of your campaign sign impaling the campaign sign of your political opponent, pinning it to the ground, your response is that you don't see a problem.
This strikes me as, well, a problem.
William.
October 16 – 10.15pm - me to William Dyer
You are being totally ridiculous. I am not responsible for the damage to Tom Vegh’s sign and I totally deplore what happened.
Contact the police if you see anyone vandalising signs but do not, absurdly, try to pin the responsibility on me.
October 16 – 11.21pm - William Dyer to me
Hello, Mr. Prentice.
I am not being "totally ridiculous". You passed on an opportunity to condemn an instance of dirty pool engaged in against your political opponent. That strikes me as totally ridiculous. A campaign operating in good faith would take the first opportunity to condemn partisan vandalism, don't you think?
William.
Gordon Prentice 18 October 2022
