Politics
Nigel Farage Says Hes Treated As War Criminal By Critics
Nigel Farage has claimed he is being “treated like a war criminal” by his critics.
The Reform UK made the astonishing remark while being interviewed by the party’s in-house podcast.
He was speaking after he shocked Westminster last week by quitting as MP for Clacton to trigger a by-election in the seat.
Farage claimed he was the victim of a “witch hunt” as he faces a parliamentary standards investigation over a £5 million gift from a Thailand-based crypto billionaire but did not declare.
He could also face separate probes over support he received from convicted fraudster George Cottrell and lobbying he has done on cryptocurrency.
On the podcast, he said calling the by-election was “the right thing to do”.
“I think effectively I’m being treated like a war criminal,” he said.
“It’s quite astonishing, and it’s like our mainstream media think we have to defer to them at all times, and I just don’t buy that.
“You look at today’s press and they say he doesn’t want scrutiny. I don’t mind scrutiny, but I do mind illegally obtained information, I do mind computer hacking. I genuinely mind those things, and the intimidation of my family.
“I just thought it had all reached such a frenzy that I had to do something.”
The decision to trigger the by-election has backfired, though, after Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems, Greens and Restore Britain all said they would not stand candidates in the contest.
Instead, Farage faces a head-to-head battle with Count Binface.
The Reform leader said: “I’ve done something positive. They wanted a by-election here. Well now they’ve got one and they don’t want to stand.”
Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
There’s been so many wonderful, heartfelt and heart-breaking tributes paid to Ann Widdecombe, written by close friends and colleagues, that when asked to write this I hesitated. What can I add? I see this as a postscript to those tributes, based on very specific circumstances that led to a rather peculiar but rewarding relationship.
When I agreed to stand as a Brexit Party candidate in the European elections in 2019, I was entering an alien political environment to that associated with my directorship of the Academy of Ideas, or my regular perch on BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze or the Sky News paper review, or indeed my previous life as co-publisher of LM magazine (the successor to Living Marxism). If that was discombobulating, what was terrifying was my first meeting with Ann, the well-known Thatcherite and former Conservative shadow home secretary.
We were to share a platform at a Brexit Party rally, and she had asked to see me privately beforehand to ‘clear the air’. I had been told she was unhappy with my candidacy after something of a media storm about my previous – albeit decades-old – involvement in the Irish Freedom Movement, a UK-based organisation that campaigned against British rule in Northern Ireland. She had lost a friend in the IRA Brighton bombing in 1984 and had been at the Conservative conference which was being held at the time. So, as I nervously introduced myself, her opening words were: ‘So, you wanted to blow me up.’
After 45 minutes of forensic grilling, during which we enjoyed a frank exchange of views, she smiled wryly, squeezed my hand and said she respected honesty and principles. She concluded in that unmistakable school ma’am voice: ‘We’d better get on with saving Brexit then.’
She went on to deliver a barnstorming speech without notes. I followed her on to the stage with a sheaf full of notes, far more nerves and far less verve. But the cheering crowd was generous to both of us. We were all on the same side on this issue at least. As I left the stage, she gave me a warm hug and, with a twinkle in her eye, said ‘you’ll do’. We never looked back.
That seriousness, generosity of spirit and humour rather set the tone for our relationship when we were elected as MEPs, along with the rest of the victorious Brexit Party candidates who ended up in Brussels. Her experience as a proper, grown-up politician, as opposed to those of us who were new to the field, was invaluable.
She was meticulously professional. When she explained why it was important to answer all correspondence, even from those who were hostile, I took note. She taught me that accountability to the public was paramount. She was forthright and intelligently probing in all our group meetings, forcing us to think through tactics and positions. She was ferociously loyal to the Brexit Party as a group, but she was also her own woman, and fervently independent.
Inquisitive about people, she was always keen to look beyond the surface and find out what made others tick. In our many conversations, we discovered how much we had in common – from our shared commitment to free speech as a core pillar of democracy to our opposition to assisted dying. And when we disagreed, we both took time to explain why we believed as we did, disagreeing civilly, and always learning something from each other. This taught me that whatever the media caricature or public persona, when you actually dig deeper, people are always more complicated and interesting.
It helps explain why now, since the tragic circumstances of her untimely death, social media are littered with hundreds of photos of Ann with countless people from all social backgrounds. Having dinner with them, chatting to them, sharing a bottle of wine with them. And she is always looking as though she is having a ball. She honestly seems to have known everyone! And that’s because she was the opposite of a snob. She was distinguished – as a political figure, novelist, celebrity – but never too grand to be approachable. She was great company and a model public servant.
One thing I really loved was the delight that Ann took in our unlikely friendship – although she did sometimes tut-tut at my blaspheming. Whenever she was approaching me, she held her arms open wide and just embraced me with such warmth, often calling me ‘comrade’, with a cheeky grin. She joked about us being united as rebels from across the political divide, and her greatest compliment was when she laughingly admitted I may have brought out a bit of revolutionary spirit in her.
She had far closer chums, deep friendships with many, and we were only colleagues temporarily. But she made a huge impression on me – not so much in terms of my politics but how to behave in the political arena. She was unbiddable, unbuyable and uncompromising in speaking truth to power. She worked bloody hard, too. Indeed, she was one of the most tireless, diligent and irrepressible women I’ve ever met.
Since her death, many have noted that she would have been an obvious person to be nominated for a peerage. We might speculate about whether grandees in the Conservative Party were – as rumoured – so sectarian and spiteful that they denied this renowned elder stateswoman that honour. Despite this, Ann was lovely when I joined the House of Lords, and showed no envy whatsoever. Instead, she gave me invaluable advice on how to operate in parliament: ‘Gird your loins when encountering condescension and sneers; speak out as often as you can, but only on issues that matter to you; don’t be bullied by others; and only act on your conscience.’ It could be a charter for all politicians.
As for Ann, the truth is she was far too busy to sit on the red benches. Having already experienced life as an elected legislator, she rightly felt she could be far more effective at realising the project of Brexit by escaping the confines of Westminster.
I hate that she was struck down so cruelly while living her best life politically. She was behaving like a Young Turk, dashing around the country speaking at Reform UK rallies and local meetings, endlessly offering forthright advice to Reform UK bigwigs and her vast range of journalist mates without fear or favour. And she appeared regularly in the media, ensuring that distinct voice of common sense was heard loudly and clearly by millions. Perhaps someone thought an act of violence would silence that voice.
There is some minor consolation that, since her death, clips of Ann have been greedily shared on social media, with some even trending. Let’s help that endeavour by sharing Ann’s uncompromising defence of free speech at the Oxford Union a few years ago far and wide. Do listen – and you might just recognise me in one of her anecdotes (ouch!).
I was just so lucky to have known her.
Claire Fox is a member of the House of Lords, and director of the Academy of Ideas.
On 13 July, activists disrupted Manchester and Glasgow offices housing Chubb Insurance. It was part of a coordinated campaign to pressure genocide-complicit corporations to sever ties with apartheid Israel.
Campaigners believe that Chubb Insurance offers Employers’ Liability Insurance to UAV Engines Limited. UAV is a subsidiary of Elbit Systems, which arms the Israeli occupation with 85% of its weapons.
Palestine Resistance Collective (PRC) occupied the Manchester office lobby with banners and a model of Elbit Systems’ quadcopter drone.
Meanwhile, Mothers Against Genocide Scotland held a family-friendly demonstration outside the Glasgow office with banners and music, engaging with the public as they passed by.
As workers arrived for the day, they had to walk through the protests and confront their corporation’s role in genocide. Some reportedly appeared shocked.
Chubb under pressure
In the last few months, Chubb has also faced numerous direct action hits across the country. Actionists have locked on outside, broken windows and covered buildings in red paint.
Last year, campaigners claimed victory when Allianz and Aviva stopped providing Employee Liability Insurance to Elbit, following sustained protest activity. Since Chubb took on this role, it has become the focus of many groups who believe sustained protest activity will again force the insurer to sever ties.
A member of Palestine Resistance Collective, who coordinated the action in Manchester, stated:
Isreal is expanding its plans of systematic land theft and murder at a never seen before scale. Whilst a myth of a ceasefire exists, Chubb Insurance is in the background drooling at the sight of money to be made off the bombs, missiles and drones dropping on tents.
Chubb Insurance will learn the hard way, akin to its cousin corporations, Allianz, Aviva and AXA who were forced to abandon their genocidal ventures.
Andrew Taylor for Boycott Bloody Insurance explained:
Chubb is profiteering from the ethnic cleansing happening in Gaza and the West Bank. Its insurance enables Elbit Systems to continue to battle-test its weapons on Palestinian civilians.
Research by Boycott Bloody Insurance uncovered that Chubb maintains a high position in terms of underwriting the risk of weapons manufacturers with ties to the genocide. Chubb has achieved the worst possible score for any insurer across a variety of key issues.
This includes insuring companies such as Lockheed Martin, Elbit Systems, and multiple suppliers of the F-35 fighter jet parts, which are also used by the occupiers to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in their native land.
Featured image supplied
By The Canary
Olly Robbins, former permanent under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, has begun a legal challenge of Starmer’s decision to sack him over his supposed role in the appointment of Peter Mandelson, disgraced ambassador to the US.
Starmer sacked Mandelson after details of his friendship and extensive communications with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein became public knowledge.
The PM blamed Robbins for failing to let him know that concerns were raised during Mandelson’s security vetting for the ambassadorial position. Starmer sacked the then-head of the Foreign Office on 16 April.
‘Dismissive approach’ to vetting
On 21 April, Robbins published a letter he wrote to Emily Thornberry MP, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. He noted that he was seeking advice about his dismissal. Further, regarding Mandelson’s appointment, he claimed that there was:
[a] dismissive approach to DV (developed vetting) from Number 10 Downing Street (No 10) for the remainder of the process. Nonetheless, despite this atmosphere of pressure, the department completed DV to the normal high standard.
The very next day, 22 April, Starmer claimed during PMQs that there was “no pressure existed whatsoever” around Mandelson’s vetting. As such, some commentators argued that the PM had misled parliament.
Casting further doubt on Starmer’s claims to ignorance, on 23 April, it emerged that the PM sent a text to Mandelson on the night of his appointment:
You’ll be brilliant in challenging circumstances. And after many years of our discussions, we get to work together side by side. I really look forward to that.
‘A rash response to a media story’
In a statement given on 13 July, Robbins’ union — the FDA, which represents civil servants — issued a statement confirming that he had requested a judicial review of his dismissal. The union urged the prime minister to admit his mistake, which it held was:
based on a grievous misunderstanding of how the national security vetting (NSV) system worked and a rash response to a media story.
The FDA also argued that:
Rather than being under a duty to tell ministers about the process leading up to the vetting decision, Olly was under an obligation not to.
The process is independent of government ministers, who are only informed of the final outcome.
In his submissions to the court, Robbins claimed there was “no fair procedure” in the decision. He further argued that Starmer:
has no statutory authority to dismiss the head of the diplomatic service.
‘I bring this action reluctantly’
The former Foreign Office chief stated that:
I bring this action reluctantly. It would have been unnecessary if the prime minister had simply apologised for his mistake and made amends for the distress and cost it has caused me and my family.
Instead, I now have to ask the courts to determine that the prime minister’s decisions were unlawful, unreasonable and to quash them.
In June, both the Guardian and the Independent reported that Andy Burnham’s team has been in talks to appoint Robbins to as national security adviser in a new administration. Jonathan Powell, the current adviser, is rumoured to quit the post in the near future.
Robbins held his position at the head of the Foreign Office for just over a year. However, he has previously worked as both the UK’s chief Brexit negotiator and deputy national security adviser.
Featured image via the Canary
By Grace
!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”7b116e6c-c831-4f0a-a2a9-f455cb6f4276″}).render(“6a550e1ee4b0107f0db7063a”);});
You might have heard about new rules in the EU which mean fliers in the bloc will be able to bring cabin bags on board for free in the near future.
The same changes also involve clearer compensation rules for people whose flights are delayed.
And on Monday 13 July, the rules were given “the final green light” by the Council of the European Union.
They won’t come into place immediately, though. “The current rules, which have been in place since 2004, will stay in effect until the new ones come into force in the second half of 2027,” the Council of the European Union said.
“The updated air passenger rules will enter into force 12 months and 20 days after the publication in the Official Journal.”
But what are the new rules, and how might they affect those flying in Europe?
What are the new flying rules in Europe?
The new EU rules include:
- Passengers will be able to bring a personal item like a small bag or backpack on board for free.
- Passengers “shall not be denied boarding on the grounds that they used their own printed version of a digitally issued boarding pass”.
- Passengers with disabilities and/or reduced mobility will be entitled to compensation, rerouting and assistance if they miss a flight due to the airport’s failure to get them to the gate on time.
- Children aged 14 and under will be able to sit beside their parents for free.
- Pregnant people and people with reduced mobility will likewise be able to sit beside their travel companion without paying added reservation costs.
- Airlines will have to have more transparent pricing, including “displaying air fares including allowance for a piece of hand baggage before the start of any booking process”.
- Airlines can’t charge passengers to correct misspellings of their name on a ticket.
- Passengers will be able to get boarding passes on check-in without having to create an account or download an app.
- If a passenger misses the outbound flight of a return journey, they won’t face a “no-show” penalty on their flight back.
- If a passenger is moved to a lower class seat in the plane than they booked, they’ll be automatically entitled to a refund.
- Printed boarding passes will have to be offered for free.
- Passengers will have nine months to file a claim against an airline for disrupted travel.
- If travel has been disrupted, airlines will have to offer passengers a refreshment after two hours, a meal after three hours, meals every five hours after that (with a maximum of three meals a day), free hotel accommodation if needed, and free travel if required.
Do UK airlines have to follow these rules?
At the moment, these rules will only be enforced within the EU. That means UK airlines don’t have to follow them because of Brexit.
But the consumer champion Which? said that, in effect, the UK will probably “have to” take the new guidelines on board in the future.
The changes will apply to all EU airlines, like Ireland’s Ryanair, and also need to be implemented on flights from the EU to the UK.
Because it would be very impractical to have different baggage, seating, boarding, and delay policies from one leg of a return flight to the next, this could mean UK airlines will follow EU flying guidance for flights to the bloc as well.
Ariana Grande fans are reeling from reports claiming that she will not be appearing in the new season of American Horror Story after all.
On Halloween 2025, there was a surprise for fans of both Ariana and American Horror Story, when it was revealed the Wicked star had been cast in the upcoming 13th season, which will reunite fan-favourite cast members Sarah Paulson, Evan Peters, Kathy Bates, Angela Bassett and Jessica Lange.
In the months since, there’ve been a few updates on the new iteration of the hit anthology series, including the fact it will be a continuation of the past seasons Coven and Apocalypse, but details of Ariana’s role have been kept under wraps.
And it turns out, there may have been a good reason for that.
Deadline is now claiming that the No Tears Left To Cry singer was forced to withdraw from American Horror Story due to scheduling “conflicts” with her ongoing Eternal Sunshine tour, which is due to arrive in the UK next month.
The US outlet cited “sources” who said that “changes to the production dates” meant the Grammy winner was no longer able to make her American Horror Story debut, and that she’d not yet filmed any of her scenes before bowing out.
While this remains unconfirmed, that certainly hasn’t stopped fans from voicing their upset over on X…
HuffPost UK has contacted Ariana Grande’s team for comment.
Asked by Variety in late 2025 what to expect from her American Horror Story role, she admitted: “I don’t know what to say because we know the same amount. We know a little tiny bit, and I know a little tiny bit, but what I know I can’t say.”
“I am coming into the world in a way that I don’t know much about yet,” she teased. “I received a text – a very exciting text – that I can’t say much about.
“But I think I’ll probably have a very tiny thing to do in it, but I’ll be grateful to be a part of it because I love everyone involved.”
Ariana is a known fan of the horror genre, and while she’s not yet appeared in Ryan Murphy’s award-winning series, she has previously collaborated with the TV super-producer on his slasher send-up Scream Queens back in the mid-2010s.
The European Union has pulled a procedural trick to ram through “Chat Control 1.0” (CC1). CC1 suspends normal EU privacy laws so that tech platforms can ‘mass-scan’ users’ private messages for government.
European Parliament members had already rejected the proposal twice because of the dangers it poses to privacy. The proposal is what MEPs term a “legislative zombie” – defeated repeatedly but resurrected over and over until it gets through.
So the EU tabled it again, but this time as an “urgent procedure”. Instead of the usual absolute majority (50% plus one of MEPs voting) required to pass or defeat it, this meant that blocking it required an absolute majority of all MEPs, whether or not they were present to vote.
Democracy bypassed
The proposal was again strongly rejected, by 314 votes to 276. However, many MEPs had already gone on holiday for the summer recess, or were otherwise unable to attend. This meant the opposition lacked the total required to defeat the proposal: 360 votes.
As a result, the ‘defeat’ didn’t count. The ‘majority of the total’ only applied in one direction – a vote to reject CC1. It wasn’t required in order for the measure to pass.
Fake ‘safeguard’
In order to con some MEPs into supporting the proposal or abstaining, the legislation was amended to exclude messages sent under supposed ‘end to end encryption’.
However, the EU council – dominated by government ministries to whom privacy is an unwanted inconvenience – is expected to remove the amendment before the legislation is enacted in its final form after the summer recess.
Assault on free expression
CC1 forms part of a wholesale assault by the EU – and the UK government – on freedom of speech, freedom of protest, and journalism they don’t like.
The EU has just passed a law making it a criminal offence to share any content – even entirely factual content – from Russian broadcaster RT (formerly Russia Today), for example. But more than anything, CC1 is part of an assault on speech and protest defending the human rights of Palestinians and opposing Israel’s crimes.
The UK government has extended its anti-democratic war on protest by expanding the Terrorism Act to apply to any organisation the government decides to ‘designate’. The ‘designation’ makes it a criminal offence even to use information from a designated group, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Again, truth is no defence – and journalists have no exemption. Instead, they can try to defend themselves – in court – against charges under the legislation by claiming they had a “reasonable excuse” for journalistic purposes. They will still have to bear the cost and expense of legal defence against prosecution.
Cui bono
All of these anti-democratic, anti-freedom measures are intended to have two main beneficiaries: Israel, first and foremost; and Ukraine, or at least the Ukraine war.
By invading private discussions, governments can more easily disrupt and criminalise attempts to organise protests, information campaigns and direct action. These efforts aim to raise public awareness of Israel’s crimes and the realities of Nazi-riddled Ukraine. State-corporate media will either ignore these, or actively cover them up, so independent journalism has to be silenced.
By combining an assault on private speech with a war on public speech and journalism, those in power hope to protect criminal states and their ‘wars’ – and the elites that benefit from, or act for, them.
The UK is no longer a functional democracy, if it ever was. The EU is clearly doing its best to rush down the same path.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
The Your Party executive committee (CEC) no-confidence vote exclusively revealed by Skwawkbox last week took place on Sunday.
The specially-arranged CEC meeting, to hold no-confidence votes in three key officials, was fraught and lasted almost three-and-a-half hours. Yet it ended without a clear conclusion, forcing members to ask party leaders to respect a clear majority vote that just failed to reach the required threshold.
The issue was a vote of no confidence in three figures blamed for the suspension of three well-known CEC members for attending a socialist conference. A number of members left the meeting rather than participate, but the no-confidence motion was supported by a clear majority of those who voted.
Your Party votes fails to reach supermajority
However, the tallies did not quite reach the two-thirds supermajority required to force the removal of the three officials. This has forced the CEC to ask leadership to respect the majority vote, which has rendered the CEC near-unworkable.
After a meeting in which efforts to put off the vote appealed to Jeremy Corbyn’s claimed wishes, CEC members don’t expect a decisive intervention. Your Party’s chaos continues, when the country is desperate for socialist clarity.
Featured image via Morning Star
By Skwawkbox
(Stefan Rousseau / PA Images / Alamy)
3 min read
London Labour MPs fighting to stop Heathrow expansion are privately hopeful that incoming prime minister Andy Burnham will cancel the project, with one saying they “wouldn’t put any money on runway three getting any further”.
The MPs, who argue that a third runway at the UK’s largest airport would have unacceptable environmental impacts, told The House that they are reassured by comments made by Burnham on the subject in January last year.
Speaking to Times Radio after Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced government support for the scheme, the then-Greater Manchester mayor said that the project “diverts infrastructure investment away from the North and traps it in London and the South East”.
He added that it was “a model for an ever-overheating UK economy, rather than a more balanced, levelled-up economy, which is what we would argue for”.
One London Labour MP said the remarks “have not passed us by” and that Burnham’s ascendancy brings “an opportunity for a change of conversation” about Heathrow expansion.
“It doesn’t make economic sense – it’s just a financially unviable scheme. I cannot see how it can meet our climate targets, but also I think it would be much better for regional growth [not to build it],” they said.
“If there’s going to be growth in air transport, it’s better to share that out with the regional airports, and I hope to get a good hearing on that from Andy.”
Another London Labour MP said that if Heathrow expands: “Manchester Airport loses out, currently Birmingham Airport loses out even more and therefore the hinterlands, the economies of those regions around those airports… I wouldn’t put any money on runway three getting any further.”
But Steve Race, the Exeter MP who co-convenes the Labour Growth Group, believes the next PM should press ahead with the work started by Reeves.
“As long as we can do it within our carbon budget, as long as we’re forcing airlines and airports to get to [improved] sustainability as quickly as they possibly can, then I think connectivity, trade and infrastructure development is absolutely key to this economy,” he said.
London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan remains resolutely opposed to the project, as he warns it would wipe out the improvements seen in London’s air quality over recent years.
One well-connected source said that as much as Khan and Burnham “don’t particularly get on” with one another, the new PM will not want to “go to war” with London’s mayor “unnecessarily about something he doesn’t really care about”.
But Burnham, they added, may still “take a more economically minded view of this than people might first assume”.
Burnham could, for example, back a rival expansion proposal put forward by the hotel tycoon Surinder Arora. Unlike the airport’s own proposal, Arora’s plan would avoid the M25 motorway needing to be tunnelled under Heathrow, as it would mean building a shorter third runway on the airport’s existing footprint.
“That would be a compromise,” said the source. “Andy is pretty into compromises.”
Heathrow CEO Thomas Woldbye has claimed that the UK “cannot realise its full economic potential without an expanded Heathrow”. The third runway, he added, “is privately funded by some of the largest investors in the world, widely supported by businesses, trade unions and communities across the country and it’s ready to go after years of scrutiny”.
A feature piece on Andy Burnham’s approach to UK infrastructure projects is now available to read in the print edition of The House magazine and will be published online on Thursday 16 July
Reform UK party’s senior figures will do anything for a propaganda win. The billionaire-backed racist outfit are always desperate for attention. Now they’re trying to make themselves the primary victim of the alleged murder of former Tory and Reform UK politician Ann Widdicombe.
Counter-terror investigation opened
Widdicombe was found dead at her Devon home on 9 July 2026.
Naturally, the British establishment scrambled to eulogise Widdicombe, a notorious homophobe and reactionary. Waxy TV prattler Piers Morgan even skipped over her bigotry to call her “fun and fiesty”.
Counter-terrorism police have now taken over the investigation. Top counter-terror cop Laurence Taylor told reporters on 13 July:
Building on the progress made by our colleagues in Devon and Cornwall Police, we now have new information and evidence that means Counter Terrorism Policing is now leading the investigation.
We are pursuing multiple lines of enquiry to establish the motivation for this attack.
Our priority is progressing this investigation quickly, with all the capabilities we have available to us. If anyone has any information, please share it with the police.
We would like to thank local communities, the wider public and the media for their ongoing support and patience, and would ask them to continue to support us in the next stage of the investigation.
There’s little suggestion what the ‘new information’ is. But that hasn’t stopped Reform trying to trade off the death – despite warnings from the police about the dangers of public speculation.
Abandoned by the state?
Reform’s shadow home secretary Zia Yusuf took to X to complain about a Daily Mail headline from 12 July. The headline said Reform UK MPs had been given 24hr protection due to the risk of being targeted. He said:
Given the way this headline is worded, many are (understandably) taking it to mean Reform MPs have been given police protection by the state.
I want to clarify that the opposite is true.
The state is providing no protection whatsoever.
He added:
In fact, based on what I have seen in the last 48 hours, none of the government, the Speaker nor the police care at all about the security of Reform MPs.
Several of our MPs have written to the above in recent months about distressing, escalating security concerns, asking for help.
Their correspondence was not even replied to.
I will let you draw your own conclusions from this.
Yusuf’s inference appeared to be that the British state has left Reform figures at the mercy of… somebody? It isn’t clear who so far, because the case has just been opened.
Tice calls media ‘sick’
Reform MP Richard Tice also stepped in on 13 July. He was attacking a Times article, which argued Reform leader Nigel Farage was spinning Widdicombe’s death for propaganda purposes:
The Times Group:
You are sick
Your contempt bordering on hatred of Nigel, myself & Reform means you stoop to any low to smear & discredit us. You lie, libel and make things up. How many more Reform politicians do you want dead?
Shame on you https://t.co/LnCCZ4YEqi
— Richard Tice MP
(@TiceRichard) July 13, 2026
The offending article had featured Harvey Proctor, a former Tory MP and friend of Widdicombe, slamming Farage for trying to use the death for his own ends:
Ann Widdecombe was far too dear to her family, friends and former colleagues for her murder to be exploited as political propaganda.
The police have expressly asked the public not to speculate about the motive. It is therefore deeply disappointing that Nigel Farage has chosen to do precisely that.
Tice followed up again several hours later after counter-terror cops took over the investigation, doubling down on his original claim:
A lot of journalists MUST now APOLOGISE to Nigel and us at Reform
You know who you are Counter terrorism police now leading investigation into Ann Widdecombe's murder investigation — Richard Tice MP
https://t.co/K8W2TVcCXs
(@TiceRichard) July 13, 2026
Speaker of the House Lindsay Hoyle is reportedly not happy with Reform’s claims:
Hearing that Lindsay Hoyle has spoken to Reform chief whip Lee Anderson over Zia Yusuf's claims that he doesn't care about their MPs' security.
Sounds like the Speaker is not very happy, to say the least.
— Jack Elsom (@JackElsom) July 13, 2026
Reform desperate to play the victim
The investigation into Ann Widdecombe’s death is ongoing. Unlike Reform’s Nigel Farage, we aren’t going to speculate on a live case. But what does seem clear is that Reform are desperate to make themselves the primary victim of an old political ally’s death. Which smacks of sheer, sad desperation and low moral health – among other things.
For a group of people who love to talk about others playing particular ‘cards’ – the ‘race’ card, for example – they like nothing more than playing the victim card themselves. Even if it is at the expense of a former member of their own party…
Featured image via Sky News
By Joe Glenton
Bookkeeping for Small Business: Step-by-Step Guide(2026)
The marginal bitcoin seller may be done liquidating, analysts say
Dave Chappelle Surprised Usher At Washington D.C. Concert
-
News Videos7 days agoWhats Hidden Inside This Cash Register? #treasure #reselling #money
-
Fashion4 days agoLoro Piana Fall 2026 Enters Houston’s Art Scene
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Nutriplenish Leave-In Conditioner
-
Crypto World7 days ago$1,000 Credit Alert! BlockDAG X Exchange Pre-Registration Now Officially Open, Polkadot Dips & Zcash Rebounds
-
Tech6 days agoAnthropic’s new “J-lens” reveals a silent workspace inside Claude that mirrors a leading theory of consciousness
-
Business7 days agoAXT Shares Jump Nearly 14% as Semiconductor Materials Maker Rebounds on AI-Linked Indium Phosphide Demand
-
Sports6 days agoJoshua Pacio ‘more complete’ ahead of ONE rematch vs Malachiev
-
Sports4 days ago2026 Genesis Scottish Open Thursday TV coverage: Round 1
-
Tech6 days agoAnthropic brings Claude Cowork to mobile and web as usage data shows most users aren’t coding
-
Crypto World7 days agoSK hynix (000660.KS) Stock Dips as $28B Nasdaq ADR Offering Drives AI Memory Expansion
-
Sports3 days agoSuper Eagles star Moses Simon opens up on Liverpool transfer regret
-
Sports6 days ago
We have punished the disrespect
-
Crypto World7 days agoBinance lists Strategy’s STRC stock as company expands Bitcoin funding
-
Tech4 days agoCharacter.AI enters the microdrama arena with its own productions, but there’s a twist
-
Tech7 days ago9 Best Keyboards (2025), Tested and Reviewed
-
Business7 days agoEnbridge: AI Tailwind Priced In (Rating Downgrade)
-
Crypto World6 days agoClaude AI Created Something Anthropic Never Designed
-
News Videos6 days ago“What’s going on?!” Carl Froch discusses Floyd Mayweather Jr financial issues
-
Crypto World6 days agoNasdaq arthritis company holding Moshe Hogeg crypto hits all-time low
-
Entertainment7 days agoTaylen Biggs Reveals The Celebrity She Dreams Of Interviewing
You must be logged in to post a comment Login