Richard Tice has condemned intimidation from a group of hard-left protesters who tried to prevent a Reform UK event going ahead last night.
Mr Tice was set to appear at a pub in York, however pressure from a radical pro-Palestine group forced the event to move venues at the last minute.
The party’s deputy leader was in the North Yorkshire town to help launch the university’s new Reform UK society, amid growing support for the insurgent party among young people.
However extremist left-wingers announced a “say no to hate” rally outside the venue in an attempt to shut down the democratic event.
A statement from York Action for Solidarity claimed that over 500 students, staff, alumni and other university societies had signed an open letter condemning the formation of the student wing.
Protesters at the Reform UK event in York (Image: SWP York X)
It screeched: “Reform UK exists as a party to further demonise already marginalised communities and sow division across society.”
“We will not let its attempts to divide our community here in York succeed.
“We call on the University of York and the York student union to ensure that marginalised students and staff are able to study and work free from hatred and abuse.”
Advice to those wanting to attend the protest included instructions to cover their faces with masks, arrive with others and to blur their faces in photos and videos, suggesting they expected trouble.
Mr Tice claimed that those involved in the protest attempted to try opening the door of a car they thought he had arrived in, only to be met with a terrified member of bar staff at the host pub.
The Boston and Skegness MP told the Daily Express: “Aggressive Antifa tactics were used by York Uni hard left, to frighten staff and students, to prevent free speech and debate”.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Richard Tice condemned the intimidation (Image: Getty)
“Shameful, but we stood rock solid and had wonderful inaugural event, thanks to great publican and efforts of police & security team.”
A photo shared on social media by the York branch of the hard-left Socialist Workers Party sarcastically described their presence as a “warm welcome” for Mr Tice, with protesters seen wearing face masks and holding placards.
While there is no report of any violence, a parody ‘University of York Reform Society’ instagram account posted images suggested protesters should turn up with eggs, and images of Nigel Farage being attacked with milkshakes.
The University of York was the third university in the country to see a registered Reform UK society launched, following Durham and Exeter.
A spokesperson for North Yorkshire Police said: “Everyone has a right to protest peacefully. However, we will not tolerate any antisocial, violent, or other unlawful behaviour and anyone found to be committing such acts will be dealt with swiftly. We attended a pre-planned protest in Heslington on Sunday evening and it concluded with minimum disruption to all sides and local residents. As always, if you’ve witnessed or been the victim of crime that isn’t an emergency, please report it to us via our website or by calling 101.”
‘Shameful!’ Richard Tice Slams Aggressive Hard-Left Protesters at Reform UK Rally
Richard Tice has condemned disruption at a Reform UK political rally, intensifying the debate over protest, political freedom and the increasingly confrontational atmosphere surrounding British politics. The Reform UK deputy leader has repeatedly argued that demonstrations should not be allowed to prevent politicians from addressing supporters, while critics of the party say protest is an important way to challenge political messages and demand accountability.
The dispute reflects a wider tension in British public life. Political rallies are intended to provide parties with an opportunity to present their policies and engage supporters, but they also attract opponents who want to challenge the speakers or draw attention to issues they believe are being overlooked.
Recent incidents at Reform events have brought these competing principles into sharp focus. Disruptions at the party’s annual conference in Birmingham in September 2026 included demonstrators interrupting speeches, while a separate controversy arose after footage showed members of the audience grabbing a protester’s hair and head as she was being removed. Police subsequently asked the woman to come forward so officers could investigate. <Cite refs={[“turn890979search1″,”turn890979search2”]}/>
These events have raised questions about how political parties should respond to disruption and how they can protect the right to speak without undermining the right to peaceful protest.
Richard Tice’s Message to Protesters
Tice has established himself as one of Reform’s most outspoken figures, regularly defending the party’s policies and challenging political opponents. His public statements frequently focus on immigration, energy policy, taxation and what he sees as failures by the established parties.
When protesters disrupt a political event, Reform figures have argued that the people attending should be allowed to hear the speakers they have come to see. Supporters who have travelled to a rally may view interruptions as an attempt to prevent political discussion rather than contribute to it.
That concern is not unique to Reform. Politicians from across the political spectrum have faced demonstrations, heckling and attempts to interrupt speeches. Parties generally want events to proceed safely and without intimidation, while police and venue staff must balance public order with the rights of demonstrators.
However, describing protesters as “hard-left” is a political characterisation rather than a neutral description of every person involved in a demonstration. The motivations of protesters can differ, and individual actions should be assessed on the available evidence rather than assumptions about their political beliefs.
Peaceful disagreement is a normal part of democratic politics. Threats, assault and other unlawful conduct are separate matters and should be investigated according to the evidence.
Disruption at Reform UK’s September Conference
Reform UK’s annual conference in Birmingham became a focus of controversy when demonstrators interrupted proceedings on several occasions.
According to reporting by The Independent, protesters were removed from the conference hall four times. One demonstrator interrupted proceedings during the event, and footage subsequently circulated showing audience members pulling her hair and grabbing her head. West Midlands Police said they had not received a direct complaint about that incident but urged the woman to contact them to assist with an investigation. <Cite refs={[“turn890979search1”]}/>
The incident prompted criticism of the conduct of some people in the audience. Reform’s home affairs spokesperson, Zia Yusuf, condemned members who pulled the protester’s hair, while party chairman Lee Anderson said there would be a collection for an audience member seen striking the woman with a walking stick, according to The Journal. <Cite refs={[“turn890979search2”]}/>
The competing reactions exposed a difficult issue for political parties. A demonstrator who interrupts a speech may frustrate speakers and attendees, but that does not justify physical retaliation. Security staff can remove people who breach event rules, and police can investigate suspected offences.
The distinction matters because the right to hold a political meeting and the right to protest are both important in a democratic society. Neither gives people permission to assault others.
Why Reform Has Become a Target for Protest
Reform’s prominent positions on immigration, national identity and energy policy have made it a focus for both supporters and opponents.
The party argues that it is raising concerns that established politicians have failed to address adequately. Its supporters point to issues such as irregular Channel crossings, pressure on public services and the cost of energy as reasons for demanding changes in government policy.
Opponents challenge Reform’s proposals and rhetoric, arguing that its approach risks deepening social divisions or unfairly targeting particular communities. Some campaign groups have organised demonstrations to challenge the party’s positions, while environmental organisations have also disrupted its events to draw attention to climate policy and political donations.
Greenpeace UK reported that it interrupted Tice’s speech at Reform’s conference on 4 September 2026 by unfurling a banner criticising Farage’s financial support and Reform’s approach to fossil fuels. The organisation said its action was intended to highlight the relationship between political funding and climate policy. <Cite refs={[“turn890979search7”]}/>
Such actions can generate publicity for a cause, but they also raise questions about where protest ends and disruption begins. Demonstrators may believe that an interruption is necessary to make an issue visible; organisers may argue that the same interruption prevents others from hearing a political argument.
The legitimacy of a protest does not depend solely on whether its message is popular. Its methods, the rights of other people and any relevant legal restrictions also matter.
Political Tensions Extend Beyond Conference Halls
The disagreement over protest has taken place against a wider backdrop of increasingly sharp exchanges between Reform and the Labour government.
In June 2026, Prime Minister Keir Starmer criticised Tice and Reform during Prime Minister’s Questions following disorder in Belfast. Starmer accused the party of helping to whip up fear and division, while Tice argued that the government had failed to respond adequately to concerns about immigration and public safety. <Cite refs={[“turn890979search4″,”turn890979search6”]}/>
The Belfast unrest followed a serious attack, and people were forced to flee their homes as disorder and fires spread. Tice condemned the violence while arguing that public anger required a political response. <Cite refs={[“turn890979search4″,”turn890979search6”]}/>
That exchange illustrates how disagreements over immigration and public safety can quickly become disputes about political responsibility. One side may argue that leaders must address the underlying concerns driving public anger; another may warn that political rhetoric can intensify hostility.
These questions require care. Public concern about government policy can be legitimate, but it does not justify violence or collective blame. Equally, condemning disorder should not be used to dismiss every peaceful protest or every criticism of government policy.
Political leaders have a responsibility to explain their positions clearly and to avoid treating entire groups as responsible for the actions of individuals.
The Importance of Protecting Peaceful Protest
Britain’s democratic system allows people to demonstrate against parties and policies they oppose. Peaceful protest can draw attention to issues that might otherwise receive limited coverage, and it allows people outside Parliament to express their views.
At the same time, people attending a political event have an interest in being able to listen to speakers without intimidation. Organisers must establish reasonable security arrangements, and police must respond proportionately when disorder or suspected criminal conduct occurs.
The most important distinction is between peaceful dissent and conduct that threatens the safety or rights of others. Holding a banner, chanting a slogan or expressing disagreement is not the same as assaulting someone. Likewise, a speaker’s controversial views do not justify physical attacks against the speaker or their audience.
The Birmingham conference incident demonstrates why these principles must be applied consistently. If a protester is suspected of being assaulted, that allegation should be investigated. If demonstrators unlawfully disrupt an event, their conduct can also be addressed through appropriate procedures.
Neither political affiliation nor disagreement with a person’s views should determine whether their safety is taken seriously.
What the Dispute Means for Reform UK
For Reform, confrontations at rallies present both political opportunities and organisational challenges.
The party can use disruptions to argue that its supporters are being denied a fair opportunity to hear its message. It can also point to demonstrations as evidence that its policies provoke strong opposition.
However, the way Reform responds to protest can affect how the public perceives its commitment to democratic principles. Condemning unlawful behaviour while protecting peaceful dissent would demonstrate that the party distinguishes between criticism and intimidation.
The same expectation applies to every other political organisation. Parties should not excuse violence simply because the victim holds opposing views, nor should they portray all demonstrators as dangerous because some individuals behave unlawfully.
Reform’s growing public profile means that its rallies are likely to attract greater attention from journalists, campaign groups and political opponents. Managing that attention requires clear rules, effective security and consistent responses to misconduct.
Tice’s criticism of protesters forms part of a broader political argument about who gets to speak, how dissent should be expressed and what standards should apply to public events.
A Test for British Political Culture
The dispute surrounding Reform’s rallies is part of a wider debate about the state of political discourse in Britain. Strong disagreement is unavoidable in a democracy, especially when parties take sharply different positions on immigration, energy, taxation and national identity.
But democratic competition depends on more than the freedom to criticise. It also requires a willingness to recognise that political opponents have rights, that allegations of wrongdoing must be examined fairly and that peaceful disagreement should not be confused with violence.
Tice and other Reform figures are entitled to object to disruption at their events. Protesters are entitled to challenge the party’s policies within the law. Where either side crosses legal boundaries, the response should be based on evidence rather than political allegiance.
The central question is therefore not whether rallies should be free from criticism, but how political events can remain open to democratic disagreement without allowing intimidation or violence to take hold.
The controversy at Birmingham has underlined the importance of that distinction. Whatever their political views, speakers, protesters and attendees should be able to participate safely, and allegations of physical misconduct should be treated seriously.
In a political climate increasingly shaped by sharp rhetoric, that principle matters to every party. The strength of democracy is not measured by the absence of disagreement, but by whether disagreements can be expressed without violence and resolved through lawful, accountable processes.