Nigel Farage has been accused of “protecting” a Mayoral candidate by his own team who’d branded him a “racist”.

Reform UK was already in crisis after an undercover TV sting by ITV showed one councillor describing Asian homeowners as “parasites” and another suggesting the King should be beheaded for secretly being Muslim.

Now new footage shows Reform aides discussing Dr Chris Parry, Reform’s candidate to be the Mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, who had posted on social media that the then Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy “must go home to the Caribbean where [his] loyalty lies”. Dr Parry had also questioned in social media posts the loyalty of eight other prominent Black and Muslim politicians.

Reform’s Director of Communications, Ed Sumner, said he was “clearly a racist”. Three weeks later after Mr Farage asked for an apology but had refused to sack Dr Parry, the same aide who allegedly told the Reform leader he was “protecting him”.

In response, Mr Farage said Parry would have to apologise. The Reform chief was filmed saying; “It’s showing a bit of… bit of sorrow. Look, ‘I’m sorry’ is probably a good thing to hear. Just take the f***ing deal. Trouble is he’s a Rear Admiral. That’s the problem.”

The latest revelations also show Reform MP Sarah Pochin said the Reform press team was “f***ing chauvinistic”.

Reform insist there has been no wrongdoing.

Earlier Andy Burnham demanded Mr Farage takes “immediate and firm” action against Reform councillors caught using racist and sexist language in the TV sting.

Mr Burnham said it was time to draw a line under the “poison” in British politics. Reform says it is investigating a number of cases and has suspended some members after the videos came to light.

The Prime Minister said: “We’ve allowed a poison into our politics in recent years, and it’s time to draw a line under it. In fact, I praised the Leader of the Opposition (Kemi Badenoch) in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon, who herself drew a line at her party conference between her party and that type of politics, and we all need to call it out more.

“I’m pleased ITV has done this. There is no place for any form of racism, antisemitism, discrimination in British politics, and we all should be relentless in repeating that and taking the firmest possible action.

“And I hope the Reform Party will take immediate and firm action against those who’ve been revealed to be making these abhorrent comments.”

On Wednesday footage showed Reform councillor Alan Feeney, deputy mayor of Solihull, claim that his area was “infested” with Asian homeowners. He was seen suggesting the government should “drag them out of their homes”.

Another clip showed a South London councillor, Dean Miller, saying the King should be beheaded after claiming the monarch is secretly a Muslim. He also described Black children as “f***** animals”.

And Raymond Dunning, who claimed to have been asked by Reform to run as an MP, said on camera: “I’m so far-right it’s unbelievable.” Further clips, recorded during a year-long investigation, showed councillor Chris Whelan making vile sexual remarks about a female Reform colleague.

The footage – set to feature in a 90-minute documentary to be screened on Sunday – raises questions about vetting by Reform UK.

Secretly-recorded video shows Mr Feeney looking at cars on a driveway in an area he claims has too many Asian homeowners. In it he said claimed it was “infested” – and added: “They’re parasites, absolute parasites”.

And unaware he was being filmed, he told an undercover reporter: “When a house comes up for sale, white people need to be in there. You almost need to f***ing out-Muslim the Muslims.”

Mr Feeney also said: “I’d be saying no more than 1% of [the] British population can be non-white… you’d need a proper nuclear option, like literally drag them out of their homes…”

And he also said the UK was getting to a point where Muslims could be banned from public office.

Mr Feeney announced he had left Reform for personal reasons this week. Another undercover clip shows Dean Miller, a Reform councillor in Bromley, southeast London, claiming King Charles was Muslim, because “someone from the inside” had seen a prayer mat.

He branded the monarch “traitorous” and in an expletive-filled diatribe said his head should be cut off.

In a statement sent to The Mirror, Mr Miller said he had resigned the party whip, adding: “This decision was taken due to a catastrophic, multi-layered failure of the duty of care and safeguarding by party leadership at both local and national levels.”

He continued: “Any footage obtained by undercover operatives occurred when I was suffering from acute physical and neurological distress, sleep deprivation, and heavily under the influence of strong, legally prescribed neurological pain medications. Any remarks captured during this period of severe cognitive impairment does not reflect my character, my beliefs, or my years of dedicated humanitarian and public health service.”

Another Solihull Reform councilor, Chris Whelan, is accused of making misogynistic comments about a female Reform candidate. He announced on Monday that he had resigned from Reform.

The Mirror has contacted Mr Feeney, Mr Dunning and Mr Whelan for comment.

Responding to the latest revelations, Mr Sumner said: “Nothing in the excerpts [of filming] discloses any wrongdoing, criminal activity or breaches of Reform UK policy by me. I do not endorse extremism or bigotry, or any concealment of extremism and bigotry”.

Dr Parry told ITV: “I would urge people to go back to the original contexts and tweets to see what was said and why.

“They related to reparations and failures by the police and government. They will see I always exercise my right to criticise anyone in power or the public eye, whom I judge to be acting against the interests of the British people.”

A Reform’s spokesperson said: “Not all individuals covertly recorded by ITV are members of Reform UK. Where members, activists and councillors have clearly behaved inappropriately, investigations have commenced. In some cases, there have been suspensions and due process must be followed.

“Reform UK has improved and prioritised its vetting procedures, but from time to time, a handful of individuals who do not share our values will initially make it through vetting. This is the same for all organisations.

“There is no room for racism in Reform UK. We always respect due process of investigations and whilst these are ongoing it would not be appropriate to comment on individual cases.”

Labour chair Bridget Phillipson said: “The extreme racism and appalling behaviour exposed by this investigation is truly sickening. Nigel Farage can’t shrug these latest revelations off as being a few bad apples.

“Every Reform councillor, council candidate or party member found to have made such despicable comments must be thrown out of Reform UK immediately.

“Nigel Farage needs to explain why this keeps happening in his party and why he is failing to deal with blatant racism among those who stand for public office with his backing. It’s clear that Farage and his party are determined to poison our politics and threaten the shared British values Labour will always proudly defend.”

Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey described ITV’s report as “chilling”, and said: “I feel for anyone watching this tonight who is frightened to see such racism and hatred festering in their community. It’s the very worst of what we’re seeing in Trump’s America. We can’t let it become Farage’s Britain.”

The accusations are among those set to feature in 90-minute film Undercover: A Year In Reform, Sunday 18th October at 10.20pm on ITV1, ITVX, STV & STV Player.

Nigel Farage Accused of ‘Protecting’ Candidate Branded ‘Racist’ by His Own Team as ITV Investigation Sparks Reform Crisis

Nigel Farage is facing mounting questions over his leadership of Reform UK after an undercover ITV investigation captured a senior party official accusing him of protecting a candidate who had been criticised for allegedly racist remarks.

The controversy centres on Chris Parry, Reform’s former mayoral candidate for Hampshire and the Solent, and the party’s response to comments he made about David Lammy, the Labour politician who previously served as foreign secretary and deputy prime minister.

Secretly recorded footage showed Farage discussing the controversy with the party’s director of communications, Ed Sumner. While Sumner argued that Parry should be removed, Farage appeared to favour allowing the candidate to remain if he apologised.

During the exchange, Sumner told Farage: “You’re protecting him.”

The footage has raised questions about how Reform handles allegations against its own representatives, particularly after Farage promised to improve candidate vetting and remove individuals with extremist views from the party.

The investigation, broadcast as part of ITV’s Undercover: A Year in Reform, has also prompted wider scrutiny of the party’s internal culture, recruitment procedures and leadership decisions.

A Controversy That Reached the Top of Reform UK

The dispute involving Parry did not begin with the latest television investigation.

Parry had previously attracted criticism after making comments suggesting that Lammy should return to the Caribbean, alongside questions about the loyalties of other politicians from minority ethnic backgrounds.

Those remarks generated accusations of racism and placed Reform under pressure to explain whether the candidate’s views were compatible with the party’s stated standards.

According to the footage reported by ITV and other media organisations, Sumner initially believed Parry should be removed from his position.

However, the candidate remained in place for several weeks after the controversy emerged.

In the recorded conversation, Farage insisted that Parry should apologise to Lammy and move on. Sumner responded by accusing the Reform leader of protecting him.

Farage’s answer suggested that he regarded an apology as a possible resolution to the dispute.

For critics, the exchange raises a fundamental question: did Reform apply its stated standards consistently, or did the candidate’s position and background influence the leadership’s response?

Farage has spent years presenting himself as a politician willing to challenge established political conventions. His supporters argue that his willingness to confront controversial issues is one of the reasons voters have turned towards Reform.

However, the investigation has placed the focus on whether the party applies the same level of scrutiny to people within its own ranks.

The allegations are particularly significant because the party has repeatedly promised to remove individuals whose conduct or views are incompatible with its standards.

Why the Word ‘Protecting’ Has Become So Significant

The accusation made by Sumner has become central to the political reaction because it appears to reveal a disagreement inside Reform’s own leadership.

Rather than coming solely from opposition politicians, the criticism was made by a senior communications official discussing how the party should respond to a damaging controversy.

That does not, by itself, establish that Farage deliberately sought to shield racism or that every allegation against Parry has been proven. However, it provides evidence of internal disagreement over how the candidate should have been handled.

The distinction matters.

Political parties routinely face difficult decisions when representatives make controversial statements. Leaders must consider the seriousness of the comments, the surrounding context, whether an apology is appropriate and whether the individual can continue to represent the organisation.

An apology may sometimes be part of a meaningful response. In other circumstances, critics may argue that it is insufficient, particularly when comments appear to form part of a wider pattern.

The public is therefore likely to ask what criteria Reform uses when deciding whether a candidate should be suspended, disciplined or removed.

The investigation has also raised questions about whether senior figures are given more protection than less prominent members.

Reform’s leadership will need to explain how its disciplinary procedures operate and whether they are applied consistently, regardless of an individual’s experience, public profile or political importance.

Reform’s Vetting Procedures Under Scrutiny

The controversy involving Parry forms part of a wider investigation into Reform UK’s recruitment and vetting processes.

ITV’s programme examined the party’s political operations over approximately a year, including activity at its Westminster headquarters and campaigning involving candidates and councillors.

The investigation reported that some party officials had discussed how to respond to controversial comments and allegations involving people associated with Reform.

Other footage raised questions about candidates’ online histories and the extent to which links to far-right figures or organisations were examined before people were allowed to participate in campaigning.

Reform has maintained that it has improved its vetting procedures and that it does not accept racism within the organisation.

The party has also argued that not everyone recorded by ITV was a member and that investigations should be allowed to proceed before conclusions are reached about individual cases.

Those points are important because allegations against individuals must be assessed on their evidence rather than treated as proof of collective wrongdoing.

Nevertheless, the investigation has created a challenge for a party that has expanded rapidly and now has elected representatives across different levels of government.

A growing political organisation must establish reliable procedures for identifying candidates, examining their backgrounds and responding when serious concerns emerge.

Vetting cannot guarantee that every controversial statement or incident will be discovered in advance. But a credible system should provide clear methods for assessing risks and taking appropriate action.

Reform must now demonstrate that its procedures are effective in practice, rather than relying solely on assurances that improvements have been made.

Farage Faces Pressure From Political Opponents

The revelations have drawn criticism from Labour politicians, who argue that the responsibility for maintaining standards ultimately rests with the party leader.

Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s party chair, called on Farage to explain why he had appeared to allow Parry to remain in position despite concerns raised by senior colleagues.

Labour’s criticism reflects a broader political argument about accountability.

When a party presents itself as an alternative to the established political system, its leadership can face particularly intense scrutiny over claims that it operates according to higher standards.

Reform has frequently criticised its opponents over political conduct, public spending and failures of leadership. Its critics argue that the same questions should be asked when allegations arise within Reform itself.

However, the controversy also has a clear partisan dimension. Opposition parties have an incentive to use damaging revelations to challenge Farage’s credibility, while Reform has an incentive to argue that its opponents are exploiting the investigation for political purposes.

Neither consideration resolves the underlying questions about the footage.

The central issues remain what was said, how the party responded, whether its rules were followed and whether any changes are required.

Those questions deserve direct answers regardless of which political party benefits from the controversy.

Farage’s Defence and Reform’s Response

Reform has rejected the suggestion that the investigation demonstrates that racism is accepted within the party.

Its response has emphasised that inappropriate conduct should be investigated, that suspensions have occurred in some cases and that due process must be respected.

The party has also criticised ITV’s undercover methods, arguing that the broadcaster used deception to gain access to its headquarters and recorded private conversations involving staff.

That criticism raises a separate debate about investigative journalism and the methods used to uncover potential wrongdoing.

Broadcasters must consider questions of privacy, fairness and the public interest when conducting undercover investigations. Reform is entitled to challenge the methods used, and any specific allegations of unlawful conduct must be assessed on the evidence.

However, criticism of the reporting methods does not automatically answer the questions raised by the recorded conversations.

Similarly, the existence of controversial remarks does not automatically establish that every allegation made about the party is accurate.

A fair assessment requires the footage, the relevant context and the responses from those involved to be considered together.

Parry has defended his comments by arguing that they should be understood in their original context and as criticism of politicians he believed were acting against British interests.

That explanation does not eliminate the controversy, but it is part of the response that must be considered when assessing the allegations.

The Challenge of Managing a Rapidly Growing Party

Reform’s difficulties also highlight the organisational challenges that can accompany rapid political expansion.

A party attracting new members, candidates and activists must ensure that recruitment processes keep pace with its growth.

This is particularly important when local representatives have significant influence over public debate and decisions affecting their communities.

Clear rules are needed to define unacceptable conduct, establish how complaints are investigated and determine when disciplinary action is justified.

The process must also be consistent. If one individual is removed for serious misconduct while another remains in position after similar allegations, the party risks creating perceptions that its rules depend on personal status or political usefulness.

That is why the dispute over Parry has attracted attention beyond the original comments.

The recorded conversation appears to show a disagreement about whether an apology was sufficient or whether the candidate should be dismissed.

Farage may argue that allowing an apology was a reasonable attempt to resolve the matter. His critics may argue that the response failed to reflect the seriousness of the concerns raised.

The issue is ultimately one of judgement and accountability, and Reform’s leadership must explain the principles behind its decisions.

A Test of Political Credibility

The controversy presents Farage with a difficult communications challenge.

He has built much of his political identity around challenging established institutions and arguing that voters deserve greater honesty from those in power.

Those themes place a premium on transparency when his own party faces serious questions.

Reform supporters may continue to believe that the investigation is being used to damage a political movement that challenges the status quo. Other voters may want to know whether the party’s actions match its promises to exclude people whose views breach its standards.

For undecided observers, the decisive issue may be less about the political arguments surrounding the investigation and more about how Reform responds.

A credible response would involve explaining the decision-making process, clarifying the status of those implicated and setting out any changes to candidate vetting.

It would also require distinguishing between allegations that have been substantiated, claims that remain under investigation and political interpretations of the evidence.

Simply insisting that other parties have their own problems would not settle the questions about Reform’s conduct.

What Happens Next?

The ITV investigation has placed Reform UK under sustained scrutiny at a time when the party is seeking to establish itself as a major force in British politics.

The allegations concerning Parry have raised questions about the consistency of Reform’s disciplinary procedures, the influence of senior officials and Farage’s personal responsibility for decisions made within the organisation.

The party has said that it does not tolerate racism and that it has strengthened its vetting arrangements. The next challenge is to demonstrate how those commitments work in practice.

That means ensuring that credible complaints are investigated, disciplinary decisions are explained and candidates are assessed against consistent standards.

For Farage, the accusation that he was “protecting” a controversial candidate is politically damaging because it challenges his claim that Reform can operate according to a different set of principles from its rivals.

Yet the ultimate judgement should depend on the evidence and the party’s actions, rather than on the accusation alone.

The wider lesson extends beyond Reform UK. Political leaders must be prepared to explain decisions involving their own colleagues, especially when those decisions concern racism, discrimination or the standards expected of public representatives.

The controversy will not be resolved by competing accusations between parties. It will be resolved, if at all, through clear answers about what happened, why decisions were made and whether the procedures in place are sufficient.

For Reform UK, the immediate task is to demonstrate that its stated commitment to high standards is reflected in the way it selects, supervises and disciplines those who represent the party.

For voters, the key question is whether the leadership’s explanation and subsequent actions provide enough evidence to establish that those standards are being applied consistently.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.