Retired copper & academic. No tolerance for racists, grifters, or the dangerous simpletons infecting the extremes of politics. Like my work, lets have a brew ⬇️
'Yes people', this is Anthony Barnes (AKA AY Audits) official photographer of the Nonce Bonnets. Please don't share this, fat Tony is a bit thin skinned for a white potato. Have a great week.
@hewitson10 Apparently this event was 'invitation only' according to the Long Eaton Flag Shaggers. This is Lewis Johnson from their group, who invites Lewis to anything?
Five council by-elections take place today:
📍 Saron (Carmarthenshire)
📍 Hertford Kingsmead (East Herts)
📍 Calverley & Farsley (Leeds)
📍 Grantham St Wulfram's (South Kesteven)
📍 Hartlebury (Wychavon)
The three worth watching are:
👀 Grantham St Wulfram's - a Conservative v Reform contest.
👀 Calverley & Farsley - Labour narrowly favoured over the Conservatives.
👀 Hertford Kingsmead - Greens defending against a strong Conservative challenge.
Elsewhere, Plaid Cymru may gain Saron from Labour, while the Conservatives are expected to comfortably hold Hartlebury.
As for Reform UK, despite the usual social media hype, they appear competitive in only one of today's five contests and are not currently favoured to win any of them.
Reform going to the police over a standard Ofcom regulated undercover investigation by ITV is like Fred West reporting B & Q to the authorities for selling him his pick and his shovel
Free speech and anti cancel culture anyone???
Striking how fast Reform went from free-press defenders to calling for the arrest of journalists who investigate it.
Its move to the populist-authoritarian model is unlikely to do much for its poll rating.
Oswald Moseley's great great grandson lets his dog bark at a fence in Manchester.
Isn't one of the racists Luke Jahn (formerly linked to the National Rebirth party)?
instead of publicly speaking out about the chauvinism within reform, you've chosen to target the very people who helped expose it.
what a disgusting example to set for young women who want to enter politics.
Zia Yusuf has made an extraordinary series of public statements presenting alleged criminal conduct by ITV journalists as established fact, in an apparent attempt to intimidate and silence the free press.
He does not say “Reform alleges that…” or “the journalists may have committed…”. He repeatedly states that criminal offences were committed by people who, as far as the public record shows, have not been charged or convicted of those offences. If these serious allegations cannot ultimately be substantiated, Yusuf could have exposed himself to significant civil liability, including a potentially serious defamation claim.
Let’s take his five claims.
“They forged a passport.”
This is a serious criminal allegation, not an established fact. There is a potentially relevant offence under the Identity Documents Act 2010, but whether it was committed depends on precisely what document was created or altered, what the journalist knew and the statutory intention involved.
Yusuf has converted an allegation about what happened to a document into a definitive declaration that a criminal offence was committed. That is a very different thing.
“These crimes carry up to 10 years in prison.”
This is pure rhetorical intimidation. A maximum sentence attached to an offence does not establish that the offence has occurred.
“They committed a criminal offence by being paid to canvass” and “almost certainly altered the results.”
This is where Yusuf’s argument becomes particularly misleading. These journalists were not paid by ITV to canvass for Reform. They were paid by ITV as undercover investigative journalists. Their participation in Reform campaign activity was part of maintaining their undercover identities. ITV did not employ them to promote Reform candidates, procure votes or act as Reform canvassers.
Yusuf then claims they “almost certainly altered” election results, without producing evidence that they changed a single vote. That is a disputed interpretation of the law followed by an entirely unsupported claim about election outcomes.
“They lied to a veteran and left him violated.”
This is emotive rhetoric, not an identified criminal offence. Undercover journalism necessarily involves deception where revealing the journalist’s identity would defeat the investigation. Pretending otherwise is simply to misunderstand how undercover journalism works.
“This is unprecedented.”
It isn’t. British journalists have used false identities, covert recording and deception for decades to investigate corruption, criminality, racism and misconduct. These are established investigative techniques, subject to the law and broadcasting regulation, not some novel weapon invented to target Reform.
A free press is not supposed to obtain permission from the political parties it investigates. Undercover journalism does not suddenly become criminal simply because the people being investigated object to what it uncovered.
If you want to understand the danger of political parties with vast financial resources using litigation and legal threats to pressure the press, this is what it looks like.
We have already seen Donald Trump use lawsuits and legal threats against major news organisations to prevent them exposing his conduct. Now Reform is threatening journalists with police action and “relentless” legal proceedings to silence them.
Patriots get gobby because they was refused service in pub so incite followers to sort it,4.5K comments on original post,some threatening to burn it down or go after the landlady,female councillor called them out now going after her,protect ar wimen only if they agree with you
Turning Point UK has serious questions to answer.
Al Jazeera’s new investigation exposes the links between a Northern Irish paramilitary hitman and Turning Point UK, a far right group run by Nick Tenconi and Jack Ross.
On Wednesday morning, Reform UK featured in two stories about breaking the law.
In one, unelected shit-stirrer Yusuf announced Reform had reported ITV and its undercover reporters to the police, stating as fact that they “forged a passport” and “almost certainly altered the results” of elections. Nothing has been charged or tested in court. ITV stands by its journalism.
In the other, the Electoral Commission confirmed something that has been tested. Reform committed four offences by publishing campaign material without imprints, the rule that tells voters who is trying to influence them. Fined £1,750, it missed the deadline, so the fine rose to £2,187.50.
An unproven allegation against journalists is “unprecedented”. A proven breach of election transparency law by the party itself gets no mention.
The fine is about 0.003% of the £72m Reform took from two donors in 48 hours this summer.
Zia Yusuf crying saying the reporters cost Reform 2 seats
George Madgwick gloating to an MP that they helped win Reform 2 seats
The same council elections 4 different constituencies
If someone said rerun all 4 they would scream the City down