Talk:Residents for Uttlesford

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force.

London Stansted

My recent edit was reverted by an individual who seems to have a great interest in this political party, to the point which I suspect that their neutrality may be somewhat compromised. The planning dispute between MAG and Uttlesford Council is a matter of public record and is noteworthy for the following reasons.

1. The Secretary of State reversed the council’s decision. 2. The appellate courts have examined the case. 3. Major trade unions and one of the U.K.’s largest airport operators have spoken publicly against the decisions of R4U.

Fair criticism of a party’s policies is worthy of being included in its Wikipedia article. The content was removed by an editor who appears to be the original author of this page. I respectfully suggest that it is likely that this person is a member or supporter of the party. LittleEye90 (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]