From KentLive:
A Reform UK councillor has been suspended from the party amid an investigation into his conduct. This follows complaints made against Kent County Councillor Robert Ford by several female members of staff.
The party has said on Monday (October 13) that the councillor, who represents Maidstone Rural West at County Hall, “refused to engage” with the process after being put under investigation and has now had the whip removed.
Remember how when just a few months ago Reform announced in their manifesto that they would cut around £90 billion of taxes if they got into power?
No-one serious believed it at the time. And now not even Reform believe in it it.
Reform UK’s deputy leader has admitted the party cannot deliver the £90bn in tax cuts promised in its manifesto, saying it would concentrate on public spending cuts once in government.
Tice now says that what were once concrete manifesto pledges were in fact "aspirations", before going back to bang on about Reform’s favourite subjects, none of which would save £90 billion if we want to have a country left at the end of the exercise.
Richard Tice said key election pledges such as lifting the income tax threshold would be an “aspiration” and that once in government Reform would concentrate on cutting the civil service and scrapping net zero.
A Labour spokesperson says:
"Farage continues to flirt with Liz Truss’s economy-crashing unfunded pledges – which would leave family finances at risk. Working people simply cannot trust Reform. They offer anger but no answers."
The Conservatives are equally as scathing, claiming that the plans are:
"…all over the place … Reform stood on a platform last year of huge unfunded commitments which would have wrecked the public finances. They cannot be trusted to run our economy."
The Institute of Fiscal Studies never believed it was possible – implying Reform are either extremely incompetent or liars:
“Regardless of the pros and cons of shrinking the state, or of any of their specific measures, the package as a whole is problematic,” it said. “Spending reductions would save less than stated, and the tax cuts would cost more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year.”
Reform accused of ‘thriving on hate’ after asylum accommodation misinformation
Rumours spread online that Kilgraston School, near Bridge of Earn, which closed last year and was recently sold to a private developer, was going to be turned into large-scale asylum accommodation.
A petition, which had nearly 600 signatures and has since been removed from Change.org, was launched by a woman who states she is a member of the Reform Party.
South Lanarkshire councillor Ross Lambie, who defected from the Tories earlier this year, reposted the initial tweet urging followers to sign it.
It turns out that there was never a plan to turn the building into asylum accommodation – something you would have hoped a councillor from a party so obsessed with all things asylum seeker related would know
Owners of the site, Lumar Capital, called the rumours “entirely unfounded and wholly inaccurate”.
Well, perhaps it’s less that Reform were ignorant and more that, once again, they were happy to whip everyone up into a misinformation-filled frenzy of hate against something that was never happening in the first place in order to themselves profit politically.
That seems to be what MP for Perth and Kinross, Pete Wishart thinks anyway:
MP for Perth and Kinross, Pete Wishart, believes the false rumours were “deliberately weaponised to stoke fear and division”.
He blamed the Reform Party members for “cynically pushing” the misinformation to “inflame tensions” and “exploit people’s anxieties.”.
He said: “This is exactly the kind of faux outrage and hate-filled politics that Reform thrives on; spreading lies, sowing distrust, and turning neighbour against neighbour.”
“It is dangerous, it is reckless, and it has no place in our democracy.”
One of the many important topics that Reform appear to have no clue about, nor plan for, is how to reconcile their self-destructive policies with the current situation regarding Northern Ireland.
Per the BBC:
The Reform leader said in August he would “renegotiate” the Good Friday Agreement in order to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
But Farage said it would “take longer” in Northern Ireland, and later said the region would “not be at the forefront” of their proposals.
Their Conservative colleagues are justly concerned:
Leeman was asked by BBC News NI if he saw Reform as a threat to the Conservatives.
“I see it as a threat possibly more to the union of Northern Ireland, when you heard Nigel Farage said Northern Ireland will just have to wait,” he said.
Reform UK recently sank to yet another new low in terms of immoral and unworkable policy nonsense. About immigration naturally.
Specifically, this is Nigel Farage’s recent decision where, should they ever have the power to do so, Reform UK will abolish the legislation behind and concept of the UK’s “indefinite leave to remain” scheme.
As the Guardian headline summarises it:
Farage vows to scrap settled status, placing thousands at risk of deportation
For context, the Indefinite Leave to Remain scheme allows long-term immigrants who have already lived in and contributed to the UK for a long time to gain a “settled” status. This gives them the right to remain in the country – to live, work and study for benefit of all involved. It’s a key pathway that migrants can pursue if they wish to eventually become full British citizens.
It is not an easy status to acquire. There are various different routes and criteria involved in getting it. The dominant requirement for most applicants is that they must have already legally lived and worked in the UK for at least 5 years by the time they apply. For example, you may have been here under a skilled worker’s visa.
Most applicants will also have to meet requirements around being able to speak and understand the English language as well as having enough knowledge of British history, culture and values in order to pass the “Life in the UK” test.
You must also be judged to have “good character”, which includes such things as not having a serious criminal record.
In summary: applicants must have integrated reasonably well to British life, and generally will be paying tax, and contributing in other ways towards the well-being of Britain and its citizenry as much as any native Briton does.
In short, these are the sort of immigrants the less rabid members of Reform might claim to value, or at least not to hate, not ti fear. After all, “it’s not about race” for them, right?
The ILTR group are then, by definition, not the hordes of (imaginary) small boat criminal masterminds that supposedly come to our shores intent only committing a violent crime-spree. They are perfectly legally compliant and well-integrated folk who happen to be of foreign but actively want to live in and contribute to the UK – and have shown over a period of several years that they can do so successfully.
In return Britain grants them a settled status so that they can go ahead and live their life, the same as the rest of us want to, safe in the knowledge that the roots they put down in this country – their homes, family life, children, spouses, jobs, community activities et al. – will not be cruelly ripped away from them at some point in the future due to a loss of employment, their visa expiring or an idiot somehow landing the Prime Ministership.
But that’s not good enough for Farage et al.
He has decided that – should he get the power to do so – he is going to abolish the very concept of indefinite leave to remain. There will be no such thing. If you happen to have been born abroad then you will always and forever need a constantly renewed visa if you wish to live in the UK, irrespective what benefits you are actually bringing to the country.
You can never really settle down. You could never dare wholly dedicate your work or personal life to our nation, because there is no reason not to worry that someone will decide you have to leave the country – and the life you have prospectively built up for yourself and your family over the past few decades – next year, next decade, or sometime beyond that – with no justification required, no right of appeal.
Most cruelly, most unfairly, this change would not only apply to new applicants. He wants to remove it after the fact from all our existing valued and beloved neighbours who already have been granted indefinite leave to remain. The doctor in your town who’s been your GP for the past decade, the newly-weds down your street with their young children who have never known another country and any number of other indescribably cruel and self-defeating scenarios.
Farage demands then that their “indefinite” leave has an definite end date. He aims to burn the rule book, to destroy what remains of any sense of “British” fair play – all to further fragment the country in the name of his own personal riches and power.
These are the folk that our country already gave its promise to that they can live, work, study, settle down, form families, start businesses and otherwise enrich the life and culture of their fellow citizenry.
This likely includes categories of folk that have been specifically invited to settle in the UK for various reasons:
He left open the possibility that families in the UK could be broken up and that Ukrainians and Hongkongers who moved here using special resettlement routes could have their rights to remain revoked.
Sure, these people could in theory continue, for the rest of their lives, to apply for visas to stay, but these will come with fresh new conditions such as you having to have a salary of at least £60,000. This is way above the average salary in the UK, which is around £37,000 for full-time employees; i.e. unachievable by most people irrespective of where they happened to be born.
It’s certainly unachievable by many of the immigrants that currently work trying to prop up our critical National Health Service, literally saving the lives of some of us day in, day out.
Per LondonCentric, interviewing a NHS psychologist about the plans:
When asked about Reform’s plans, Trinity told London Centric: “It seems like there’s a strict salary cap, but if you work for the NHS you don’t normally meet those caps, which is why you have health and care visas. It’s not clear to me that there would be any clear route for me to stay as an NHS worker who is in a lower income band.”
Even if you did pass these conditions, you would have your ability to access national health or social security services taken away from you. There would be new rules governing with or not your spouse or other family members may come along. You would also have to give up any other citizenship you have.
From the Guardian:
Reform said anyone who had indefinite leave to remain would have it rescinded – and would need to reapply for a visa – throwing the lives and status of many families into uncertainty.
There are some further problems with the scheme, even aside from its abject unfairness and immorality.
Remember Brexit, the disaster that was successfully campaigned for most strongly by Reform’s leader, Nigel Farage? Well, any EU citizens settled here are probably protected by the Brexit deal, so his new rules can’t apply to them. And that’s apparently 60% of folk with settled status.
Plus, despite the constant inflaming of tensions online and in our media, the abolishment of this sort of scheme is actually rather unpopular within UK public opinion.
The NatCen panel asked a question last year regarding when British people thought migrants who work and pay taxes in the UK should start being able to access the same welfare benefits as other UK citizens.
Even the majority of folk who held negative views on immigration thought they should be able to do so after 5 years, which is what the current ILR scheme enables.
Only 3% of respondents thought it should never be possible, which is what Farage is proposing.
97% of the country realises how unreasonable Farage’s policy is.
Even among those who agree with Farage that migration has been economically harmful, only one in ten would favour permanently excluding migrants from the welfare system. Opponents to this proposal will substantially outnumber supporters even among Reform’s existing voter base.
Yougov also recently surveyed people specifically regarding indefinite leave to remain.
Sure, Britons were split around 44:43 regarding supporting vs opposing the granting of indefinite leave to remain in general (13% ‘don’t know’). This is presumably looking forward to future applicants.
When it came to the question of whether the people who have already made the effort to earn the right to stay should suddenly have it removed from them, most people oppose it. Less than a third of of people would actively approve of that.
Less than half of even the people who would support the ILTR law being abolished in general would support the rights already granted being taken away from those who were already promised that they qualified for it forever.
It’s not only members of the public in general that are against Farage’s plans. Many organisations are virulently opposed to it too.
The people swept up in these potential mass deportations include many of those who work in the NHS, caring for us all in the UK. The general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing seems understandably both disgusted at the idea of it and concerned for what it would mean for the future of the British National Health service, saying:
Threatening to sack thousands of migrant nursing staff is abhorrent beyond words. These are people who have come to the UK to care for patients and become part of our communities. They deserve so much better than this.
The policy of retrospectively removing people’s rights in this way would be unprecedented, leaving migrant nursing staff unable to work or access welfare, despite having paid tax. It shows neither compassion nor an understanding of the fundamental role our brilliant migrant nursing staff play in health and care. Without them, services would simply cease to function.
Workplace related organisations are not the only people reacting negatively.
The Labour party chair, Anna Turley, elucidates how, in line with most other big Reform “policy” announcements, it seems it hasn’t been thought out at all:
Reform have been forced to admit that their policy does not apply to people from the EU – destroying Farage’s claims that it covers all foreign-born nationals. Farage is unable to say how many families his policy would break up, what the cost to businesses would be, what would happen to pensioners and how long it would take to implement
The Mayor of London:
Threatening to deport people living and working here legally is unacceptable
The leader of the Lib Dems:
Nigel Farage has not clearly thought this through. He has not worked out the impact on red tape or on taxes. He has not realised that lots of these people have made their lives here, contributing to businesses, to the health service
The SNP’s deputy Westminster leader:
…desperate and despicable
The (Conservative) shadow home secretary:
half-baked and unworkable
The directory of the British Future thinktank:
Threatening to revoke the settled status of millions who already have indefinite leave is morally wrong, beyond the legal and practical chaos it would cause – it undermines the very idea of belonging in this country
A senior partner at a law firm shows how this policy, coming of course from Reform, a party packed with fake patriots, would likely make the country poorer:
This policy, Barrett-Brown said, would dissuade “skilled workers, CEOs and scientists” from moving to London: “It would also have a financial impact in terms of tax intake… It’s all predicated on the notion that they think everyone who gets indefinite leave is on benefits, but, in reality, they are actually overall net contributors.”
and is anyway sceptical that they could even implement it:
However, Barrett-Brown cast doubt on whether Reform would actually be able to deport people en masse. “There would be so many legal challenges, that it would really affect their ability to implement it,”
And once again the whole policy is based on at best inaccurate figures. Surface level quantitative sounding “cost savings” in an attempt to appear more frugal than racist that, yet again, turn out to be built on quicksand.
Reform claimed this move would save £230 billion. Unsurprisingly, given Reform’s history of financial deception and incompetence, this figure is seemingly based on a report which even the people who authored it said shouldn’t be used.
Reform’s central claim that the move would save £230bn was called into question when it emerged that it had been sourced from a Centre for Policy Studies report whose authors said the figure “should not be used” because it was based on erroneous data.
The current leader of Reform UK is a notorious admirer of the international criminal President Putin.
Per the BBC:
Mr Farage was challenged over his judgement and past statements, including when he named Russian President Vladimir Putin as the world leader he most admired in 2014.
He later made the inexcusable claim that the EU and NATO provoked Putin into his illegal war on Ukraine.
From the same BBC article linked above:
Mr Farage said he had been arguing since the 1990s that “the ever eastward expansion” of the Nato military alliance and the EU was giving President Putin “a reason to [give to] his Russian people to say they’re coming for us again and to go to war”.
He added: “We provoked this war…”
His political colleagues from other sides of the aisle disagree. Former Conservative Defence Secretary Ben Wallace sums it up well:
Mr Wallace – who oversaw the UK’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 – said Mr Farage “is a bit like that pub bore we’ve all met at the end of the bar” and often presents “very simplistic answers” to complex problems.
He also said the Reform UK leader had been “consistently wrong” on the issue, adding: “Putin isn’t really invading Ukraine because of Nato expansion.”
Nonetheless, Farage’s incessant grifter side was happy to personally take money in order to appear on Russian Kremlin propaganda TV channel RT, formerly known as Russia Today. A claim he was paid half a million was likely incorrect, but no-one denies he made at least a few thousands pounds profit from appearing on a channel funded and controlled by the Russian state.
Another unhinged Reform UK councillor looks to be biting the metaphorical dust. This time it’s Councillor John Allen, of Northumberland’s County Council. He’s been suspended from the party whilst they “investigate” some of his social media comments he’s alleged to have made on Youtube, under the account name @johnallen7807.
Over the last few weeks, in a particularly febrile atmosphere when it comes to political violence, he’s been publicly posting about his deep desire to murder our Prime Minister, Keir Starmer
Here’s a few choice examples, as shared by Hope Not Hate after their investigation:
Meanwhile 5 armed police are busy at Heathrow arresting a comedy writer for “hurty words”, I cant wait to see Srarmer swinging from a lamp post!
(misspellings copied from the original)
5 armed police??? I’d shoot Starmer myself if I had the weapon and opportunity!
Predictably, it’s not just Starmer he hates. Other folk he’s scared of include those with darker skin tones.
Am I the only one who has trouble taking a dirty looking dreadlocked black man seriously? he lives here milking the system for all it’s worth because he knows we ae stupid enough to allow it.
and when Will Smith slapped Chris Rock at the 2022 Oscars:
Hmmm? interesting, let me see, we have two billionaire black men who are held up as role models having a fight at a world wide televised event. What were they doing? arguing over the price of drugs???
Two millionaire black men having a fight, I bet it was about the price of drugs!
Naturally we can add Muslims and LGBT+ folks to the list of people he can’t stand. Even when they are literally in the leadership of his very own party.
Regarding ex-Reform-party chairman Zia Yususf and current Reform party chairman David Bull:
I believe we have to be very careful about links to big donors. In this particular case the man is a muslim and the fundamental tenets of his religion are diametrically opposed to our Western Judeo-Christian values and, as most polls show, muslims put their religion about their country.
and
Hmmm? So we go from a muslim Chairman to a gay Chairman??? Neither of them represent my view on life!
At least those prejudiced outbursts are consistent with his views on the mainstream Conservatives a couple of years back. As you’d imagine, Prime Minister Sunak also wasn’t to the taste of this vile bigoted man, who has no business representing anyone.
20 years ago most Conservatives were Christian, no we have a Hindu PM, a muslim mayor of London and LGBT perverts get a whole month to “celebrate”! We only give those who died for our freedom 1 DAY!
The supposed party of free speech and accountability to the masses are once again showing their true colours.
Councillor Mick Barton, leader of Reform’s Nottinghamshire County Council, has told local media outlet Nottinghamshire Live that neither he or his fellow councillors will ever deign to speak to or answer questions from their journalists again. Or any of those from the essential Local Democracy Reporting Service which means national institutions like the BBC will be similarly hampered.
Nottinghamshire Live has been put on notice that Reform UK’s Nottinghamshire county councillors will refuse to speak to any of our journalists from here on in. The ban, which will only be lifted for emergency scenarios like flooding or incidents at council-run schools, applies both to our journalists and to the team of reporters we now manage under the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).
He’s told his officers to stop sending them press releases, that neither he or his 41 Reform colleagues will take interviews, and that they will not be invited to any county council events.
The ban also applying to LDRS reporters means it will affect other outlets too:
The fact that the policy also applies to our LDR reporters means this policy will not just affect coverage for Nottinghamshire Live readers. The BBC-funded scheme is an essential service which sees all local media outlets in an area being able to run reports from the LDR journalists covering council meetings and council business.
Why? Seemingly simply because they published an article with what seems like a relatively minor criticism which Councillor Barton didn’t like – even though Reform couldn’t be bothered take up the chance to respond to the claims made that they were offered in advance:
It was my recent article on the ongoing discussions about local government reorganisation (LGR). The article included a claim that two Reform UK councillors said at a public surgery that they could be suspended from their county council group if they did not vote for Councillor Barton’s preference of a bigger Nottingham council covering Broxtowe and Gedling.
The article repeatedly referred to the fact that this was merely a claim and noted who that claim had come from. We also went to both Councillor Barton and the two Reform UK councillors concerned ahead of publication and explicitly told them about the claim.
Councillor Barton did not wish to comment on the claim directly, whilst the two Reform councillors who allegedly made it both sent identical messages which did not explicitly deny the claim.
Reform MP Lee Anderson also has previous form in running down Nottinghamshire Live on the basis he thinks it runs pieces that are too “negative” about Reform.
Said Anderson at the time, as conspiracy minded and dishonest as ever:
We will take our country back and these lefty out of touch low level so called journalists will have to go and get a proper job.
Quite an incredible statement from a supposed public servant. It’s very clear that Anderson and his ilk would happily see any news institution that isn’t entirely in thrall with his political party – i.e. any news institution that is actually doing its job – closed down. This is a typical tactic of a wannabe autocratic regime.
They’re rightly scared that every time their incompetence and cruelty is revealed there is a risk that their popularity will decrease. The truth hurts them. And so enforced fealty and censorship is the order of the day.
Nottinghamshire Live give a full run-down of what went on regarding this and several other incidents they’ve experienced that would suggest Reform are rather more anti-press, anti-accountability and pro-censorship that one would expect of any political party, let alone one that pretends to value freedom, transparency and accountability.
As the journalist Oliver Pridmore noted in the first article I read about this:
It is truly baffling that Reform UK, the party that supposedly champions free speech, is allowing one of its new council leaders to block access to one of the biggest news outlets in his area over a fair and balanced piece of local journalism.
…
There is something fundamentally unhealthy about elected, taxpayer-funded politicians deciding to take that path though. Nottinghamshire County Council is an authority with a budget of over £1 billion, covering a population of 800,000 people by delivering vital services ranging from schools to social care.
The idea that a historic and regulated news outlet will no longer be able to scrutinise the essential work above is incredibly chilling. I have written an incalculable number of pieces in this job that council leaders did not like.
Sometimes they have complained to me personally, sometimes they have decided to challenge our coverage publicly, but I have never experienced a council leader refusing to speak to us unless there is some sort of disaster. It is a ridiculous situation that rendered me speechless when I first heard of it.
The Society of Editors is equally as shocked – at the end of the days, politicians need to be held to account.
Reform UK’s decision to shut out Nottinghamshire Live and its Local Democracy reporters is profoundly wrong. Political parties must welcome scrutiny, not silence it. When councillors refuse to answer questions or provide information, they’re not just shutting out the press — they’re shutting out the public they serve.
Other local politicians are similarly as appalled about Reform’s outrageous decision:
MP Kevin Hollinrake, Conservative Party chairman, said it was a “disgrace for Reform to deliberately cut off local journalism”.
He added: “They are completely denying communities the right to scrutinise those in power.
“If Reform can’t even face questions from the Nottingham Post, what hope is there that they could ever face the serious responsibilities of government?”
The leader of the opposition on Nottinghamshire County Council, Conservative Sam Smith, called the ban an “extremely dangerous step”.
He added: “It’s not just the press Reform are shutting out in Nottinghamshire. It’s the voice and views of residents.”
Labour MP for Mansfield Steve Yemm added: “Shutting the door on local journalists doesn’t just block criticism, it cuts off residents from the facts. Whether you agree with every headline or not, local media keeps the public informed and those in power honest.”
Over 40,000 members of the public, at the time of writing, have signed a petition demanding the ban be reversed.
Nigel Farage says he welcomes freedom of speech, even if people find it offensive. Surely that should apply to freedom of the press too? So why have Reform’s Nottinghamshire councillors – who control the county council – been banned from talking to the Nottingham Post & Nottinghamshire Live, just because we wrote an article they didn’t like?
…
When councillors pick and choose which journalists get to talk to them, they can control the story and hide the truth.
Nonetheless, this kind of ban might already be spreading beyond Nottinghamshire’s Reform.
The New Statesman reports that:
In Croydon, south London, the head of the local Reform branch announced he would no longer engage with Inside Croydon journalists after they revealed the party was running a dead candidate for mayor.
Which is a hilarious sentence, but a very worrying policy choice.
The party also banned several journalists from attending its annual Conference:
The Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr and Josiah Mortimer of Byline Times were barred from the populist Reform party’s conference…Adam Barnett and Simon Childs of Novara Media were blocked by both the Conservatives and Reform
And Nation.Cymru, a news outlet in Wales, is now concerned that they have been quietly subjected to the same kind of ban as Nottinghamshire Live was.
As the news editor of Nation.Cymru, I was blocked completely from speaking with Reform Wales’ former spokesperson and now Caerphilly candidate Llŷr Powell.
Powell had taken umbrage with my attempts to report on his controversial previous employment with Scouts Cymru.
…
During Powell’s time as Wales’ head of communications, we did not receive press releases or invites to some of the party’s key Welsh announcements such as Laura Anne Jones’ defection to Reform from the Conservatives.
…
One senior Reform figure told me he would “never” speak to a prominent BBC Wales reporter again following an entirely legitimate story the public service broadcaster had run about him.
The same Reform figure sent me a message saying he was “happy” to work with me – but only if I didn’t ever report on the same story.
The party’s supposed strong support for free speech appears to only apply if a journalist doesn’t report on something they would rather the public didn’t know.
Labour point out the obvious hypocrisy:
Farage is happy to fly thousands of miles to lecture others on free speech, yet doesn’t appear to care about his Reform foot soldiers refusing to speak to local journalists. Free speech when it suits is no free speech at all. He’s a total hypocrite.
…
Farage’s councillors are clearly unable to defend their record. If they want to hold public office, they must accept the responsibility that comes with it – including answering to the people they serve.
Not surprising Farage wants to denigrate Britain further by cutting us out of the international laws that guarantee a free press, such as the European Convention of Human Rights. About article 10 of the ECHR:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and to receive and impart information. This right also covers the freedom of the press. Freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. The media require particular protection because they play a key role in defending freedom of expression. Article 10 protects, among others, the right to criticise, to make assumptions or value judgments and the right to have opinions.
It’s one of many human rights he wants to throw away in order to strip us citizens of our rights, all in the name of making him and his billionaire funders richer and more powerful.
He wants a censored press that expresses only abject sycophancy, worshiping the one-man-band that is Reform. Whereas the actual obligation of the press is to report honest and accurate news – including on the injustice, corruption and incompetence of his political party on the many occasions when it occurs.
Reform councillor David Fitzgerald is a member of his local authority’s standing advisory council on religious education (SACRE).
He raised the subject of religious education apparently apropos of nothing, in a debate that was supposed to be about DBS safeguarding checks.
He’s much more concerned about Religious Education than background checks on people who want to work with children apparently. With the exception of if the RE lesson is exclusively about Christianity, in which case, all good.
On any “religious education that is not Christian“:
I am totally against it. We are a Christian country and have been for centuries, and we must remain so.
My concern is these children could be brainwashed into other things. I’m concerned about the education in religion for my grandchildren in this Northumberland county of ours.
Aside from the fact that far from every 11-year old in Britain is a devoted Christian in the first place, it seems he’s another one of these curiously scared, unpatriotic, freedom-hating men that believes that British culture and/or the religion of Christianity is so weak and feeble that if a child merely hears about the existence of other religions in other places they will be rendered “unchristian” or otherwise brainwashed – contrary to all available evidence.
In the mean time it seems possible that Mr Fitzgerald may join the long list of Reform resignations or sackings. Four MPs in the surrounding area have written to the council asking that he be removed from SACRE due to some posts he made on social media.
I do not know the nature of the posts, although perhaps one can get a clue from a statement from David Smith, one of the MPs concerned who said that:
Sharing statements like this on social media is taking us away from decent conversations about rebuilding solidarity in our communities and stirring up a kind of knee-jerk hatred that causes real harm.
Yet another Reform councillor has been placed under arrest.
Earlier this week, police officers entered Basildon Council’s offices in order to arrest Councillor Sam Journet.
Why? For stalking, harassment and public order offences according to the police. The council adds public disorder and trespass to the allegations.
This follows the previous arrests of Reform councillor Amanda Clare for assault and criminal damage, and Daniel Taylor for various crimes including threatening to kill his wife.
So much for Reform being the “tough on crime” party.
