Reform UK has suspended a party activist who reportedly said that you cannot be Muslim and British in footage recorded by an undercover reporter from ITV News.
It is also investigating two of its councillors who appear to have advocated for the mass shooting of grooming gang members in the footage.
The party’s response follows the latest allegations from undercover filming by ITV News, external, which has led to Reform facing questions over its vetting procedures for candidates.
A party spokesperson told the BBC it was pursuing legal action against ITV and the documentary’s production company which had used undercover reporting to obtain its material.
Reform said in a statement to ITV here is “no room for racism” in the party, and added that it has opened investigations where activists or members had “clearly behaved inappropriately”.
In the ITV documentary Undercover: A Year in Reform – set to be broadcast on Sunday – party activist Jason Powell reportedly says: “You cannot be Muslim and British, it’s like oil and water.”
In the footage, Powell, who has applied to be a Reform parliamentary candidate, also says he believes migrants who arrive illegally should be kept in “concentration camps” if they cannot be returned to their country of origin.
Reform said Powell has been suspended from party membership while an internal investigation takes place.
Reform is also investigating two councillors who represent the party in the London borough of Hounslow.
In the footage, Councillor David Kerr advocates machine gunning thousands of grooming gang members.
His colleague Councillor Adam Parkins suggests if he became prime minister he would conduct Sunday morning executions in the Downing Street rose garden.
Mr Parkins told the BBC that advocating the death penalty for men who “systemically groomed and raped young girls” was a perfectly legitimate opinion.
Mr Kerr has been contacted for comment.
Reform UK has said it has prioritised and improved its vetting procedures.
On Wednesday night, ITV News broadcast undercover filming which showed some of Reform’s councillors and candidates using racist, violent and sexist language.
Responding to the broadcast, Reform UK MP Robert Jenrick said all political parties had “bad apples”.
Speaking to the BBC’s Today programme, he said he “didn’t like what I heard in the documentary” but argued that the party had acted quickly, removing or suspending those in the undercover film.
Reform UK Activist Suspended After Claiming Muslims Cannot Be British
Reform UK has suspended activist Jason Powell after undercover footage reportedly showed him claiming that Muslims cannot be British and advocating the use of “concentration camps” for people arriving in the United Kingdom by small boats. The revelations have intensified scrutiny of Nigel Farage’s party, raising fresh questions about candidate vetting, internal discipline and the standards expected of people seeking public office.
The suspension followed an investigation by ITV News that examined the conduct and private comments of Reform UK activists, candidates and elected councillors. The footage reportedly captured Powell expressing hostility towards Islam and arguing that British identity was incompatible with remaining a Muslim. Reform subsequently confirmed that Powell had been suspended while an internal investigation took place. <Cite refs={[“turn207327search0″,”turn207327search1”]}/>
The controversy has placed Reform’s leadership under renewed pressure to explain how individuals expressing such views were able to become involved in the party’s political activities. It has also reopened a wider debate about religious identity, immigration and the distinction between legitimate political disagreement and discriminatory statements about entire communities.
What Did the Undercover Investigation Reveal?
According to reports published on October 17 and 18, 2026, Powell was filmed during an undercover investigation into Reform UK. He reportedly described himself as “pretty hardline about Islam” before arguing that a person could not be both Muslim and British.
In the footage described by journalists, Powell referred to Reform home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf, who is Muslim, while explaining his position. Powell compared the combination of British identity and Muslim faith to “oil and water”, suggesting that the two were incompatible. <Cite refs={[“turn207327search1″,”turn207327search3”]}/>
The remarks attracted attention because they questioned the national belonging of an entire religious community. British Muslims come from a variety of ethnic, cultural and national backgrounds, and many are British citizens who participate in public life, work in essential services, run businesses and contribute to their local communities.
The investigation also reportedly recorded Powell advocating the creation of concentration camps for migrants arriving across the English Channel. He suggested that people entering by small boats should be detained and given an ultimatum to identify their country of origin so that they could be returned. <Cite refs={[“turn207327search2″,”turn207327search6”]}/>
These were reported comments made during covert filming, rather than official Reform UK policy announcements. That distinction matters when assessing the party’s stated position. Nevertheless, the remarks have raised questions about the views of individuals who seek to represent the party and the standards it applies to prospective candidates.
Reform UK Confirms Suspension
Reform UK responded by suspending Powell from party membership while an internal investigation proceeds. The party said there was “no room for racism” and that investigations had been opened where members or activists had clearly behaved inappropriately. It also argued that due process should be followed before conclusions were reached about individual cases. <Cite refs={[“turn207327search0″,”turn207327search4”]}/>
The suspension is a significant immediate step, but it does not resolve every question raised by the investigation.
One issue is how Powell passed the party’s vetting procedures. Reports indicated that he had applied to become a Reform parliamentary candidate and said he had passed the relevant checks. This has led to renewed scrutiny of how the party evaluates applicants, particularly those who may hold controversial views on religion, immigration and national identity. <Cite refs={[“turn207327search3″,”turn207327search6”]}/>
Vetting procedures can examine a candidate’s background, public statements, previous political activity and potential conduct in office. However, they cannot predict every future statement or private conversation. Parties therefore need procedures that address both selection before an election and accountability when new information emerges.
Reform has said it has improved and prioritised its vetting process. The current controversy will test whether those changes are sufficient and whether the party can demonstrate that its standards are applied consistently.
Nigel Farage Faces Questions Over Candidate Selection
For Nigel Farage, the controversy creates another challenge in his efforts to establish Reform UK as a party capable of expanding its parliamentary representation and attracting voters beyond its existing base.
Farage has previously argued that no vetting process can predict every comment a person might make in the future. His position reflects a practical difficulty faced by political organisations: candidates and activists may behave differently in private than they do during official campaigning.
However, critics argue that this explanation does not remove the responsibility to investigate serious allegations and take appropriate action. They contend that the repeated appearance of controversial comments in undercover investigations raises questions about whether the party’s screening procedures are working effectively.
The latest case follows earlier reports involving Reform councillors who were filmed making racist, sexist or violent remarks. Several individuals have faced suspension, resigned from the party or come under pressure to leave their elected positions. The separate cases have added to questions about the party’s ability to maintain consistent standards as its organisation grows. <Cite refs={[“turn207327news7″,”turn207327news8″,”turn207327search5”]}/>
The circumstances differ from case to case, and the allegations should not automatically be treated as identical. Nonetheless, Reform’s leadership faces a common challenge: explaining how it will identify inappropriate conduct, investigate complaints fairly and ensure that those who represent the party are held to clear standards.
Can Someone Be Muslim and British?
At the centre of the controversy is a question about British identity and religious belonging.
British citizenship is a legal status, while religious faith is a matter of personal belief and practice. The two are not mutually exclusive. Muslims have been part of British society for generations, and Muslim citizens serve in Parliament, local government, healthcare, education, business and other areas of public life.
Zia Yusuf’s role as Reform UK’s home affairs spokesman is itself an example of a Muslim participating in the party’s national political leadership. Powell’s reported comments about Yusuf therefore raised an additional question about how the activist viewed a senior figure within the organisation he sought to join.
People can disagree strongly about religious doctrines, cultural practices, immigration policy or the relationship between religion and the state. Such disagreements are part of democratic debate. However, claiming that every member of a particular faith is incapable of being British is a sweeping assertion about identity, rather than a specific criticism of an individual’s actions or political position.
A pluralistic society can debate questions of integration and shared civic values without assuming that religious belief automatically makes someone less loyal to their country.
For many British Muslims, national identity and religious identity coexist without contradiction. The public debate should therefore distinguish between legitimate discussions about citizenship and integration and claims that exclude an entire religious group from belonging.
Immigration Policy and the Concentration Camp Remark
Powell’s reported comments about concentration camps have also drawn attention to the increasingly contentious debate over Channel crossings and asylum policy.
Small-boat arrivals have become a major political issue in Britain. Governments have faced pressure to prevent dangerous crossings, disrupt criminal smuggling networks, process asylum claims efficiently and return people who have no legal right to remain.
Reform UK has campaigned for a much tougher approach to irregular migration. Its proposals have attracted support from voters who believe existing arrangements have failed to control the border effectively. Others question the feasibility, cost and legal implications of some of the party’s proposed measures.
Powell’s reported language, however, went beyond a general call for stricter border enforcement. His reference to concentration camps has prompted questions about the treatment he envisaged for people arriving in Britain.
Any government policy involving detention must be assessed against applicable law, the circumstances of the individuals concerned, safeguards against arbitrary detention and the practical arrangements for resolving immigration cases. The use of inflammatory terminology does not answer those questions or establish that a particular policy would be lawful or effective.
The controversy also demonstrates why the distinction between a party’s official programme and an individual activist’s remarks matters. Powell’s reported statements should not automatically be attributed to every Reform member, but the party must explain how it responds when an applicant expresses views that appear inconsistent with its stated standards.
Political Opposition Calls for Accountability
The wider undercover investigation has generated criticism from political opponents, who argue that Reform must take responsibility for the conduct of people associated with its campaigns.
Labour chair Bridget Phillipson criticised the party’s handling of the revelations and questioned Farage’s response to the broader pattern of reported remarks. Other political figures have also raised concerns about racism, misogyny and the party’s candidate selection procedures. <Cite refs={[“turn207327search1″,”turn207327search5”]}/>
Reform has defended its approach by pointing to the investigations and suspensions it has initiated. The party has also indicated that it is pursuing legal action against ITV and the documentary’s production company over the undercover reporting. <Cite refs={[“turn207327search4″,”turn207327search6”]}/>
That legal dispute is separate from the question of whether the reported remarks were made and how the party should respond to them. The use of undercover journalism can raise questions about context, privacy and the way recordings are presented. At the same time, political organisations are entitled to be questioned about the behaviour of people seeking to represent them.
The fairest assessment requires attention to the full context of the footage, the responses from those involved and the outcome of the party’s investigation.
The Importance of Consistent Standards
Political parties face a difficult but essential responsibility when selecting candidates and responding to allegations of misconduct.
A rigorous vetting system should assess relevant background information and identify warning signs where possible. Clear codes of conduct should explain what behaviour is unacceptable, while fair disciplinary procedures should allow individuals to respond to allegations before final decisions are made.
Consistency is equally important. If one activist is suspended while another individual facing comparable allegations remains in good standing, a party should be able to explain the reasons for the difference. Decisions should be based on evidence and established rules rather than political convenience.
Reform’s growing public profile makes this responsibility particularly significant. A party seeking to represent communities across the country must be able to demonstrate that its candidates understand the obligations associated with public office.
At the same time, accountability should remain proportionate. A suspension during an investigation is not the same as a final finding, and allegations should not be presented as judicially established facts when no such determination has been made.
The objective should be a transparent process that protects standards while respecting procedural fairness.
What Happens Next?
Powell’s suspension leaves several questions unresolved. The party’s internal investigation will need to consider the reported remarks, any explanation he provides and whether his conduct breaches Reform’s rules. The party may then decide what further action is appropriate.
The episode also places pressure on Reform to demonstrate that its vetting procedures are more than a formal requirement. The public will want to know whether the party has clear criteria for selecting candidates, how concerns are investigated and what consequences follow when serious misconduct is established.
For British Muslims and other minority communities, the controversy has renewed a broader discussion about belonging and equal citizenship. Political debate over immigration and integration is legitimate, but it should not erase the distinction between an individual’s beliefs or actions and the rights of an entire community.
Ultimately, the case is about more than one activist’s reported comments. It raises questions about the responsibilities of political organisations, the standards expected of prospective representatives and the meaning of national identity in a diverse society.
Reform UK has taken the immediate step of suspending Powell while an investigation proceeds. Whether that response restores confidence will depend on the transparency of the process and the consistency of the party’s actions.
The wider debate should remain grounded in evidence, individual responsibility and the principle that political disagreements can be robust without denying the national belonging of people because of their religion.