Throughout this series of posts, we ask that you become the jury and decide for yourself. You would need to maintain an open mind regardless of your political position and draw your own conclusions. We would love to hear what you think in the comments below.
Those suspended, along with the candidates and the role players, maintain that nothing untoward occurred during the interviews. The video proves this (more on this later) The only person or persons who felt embarrassed appear to be those who made the initial complaint. It is worth remembering that a dozen people were present in the café, excluding the candidate, yet the party suspended only six. We do have statements from the role players and the candidates who took part in the interviews.
A BASIC SCHOOLBOY ERROR 
The email referenced in Part One stated, “We have received a complaint of inappropriate conduct during a Sheffield East candidate interview panel on 13th November, at the Café, Sheffield.”
The interviews took place on the 10th November, not the 13th November, as the email claimed. Reform UK has failed to address this fundamental schoolboy error in any of its correspondence. One must ask what would have happened had those suspended denied being present on the 13th. Regardless, and in the spirit of full cooperation, all six chose to respond.
Although the following error may seem minor at first glance, it remains important for the record. The same email then made the following assumption: “It is alleged you were part of this interview panel.”
Because the party sent this identical email to all six individuals, the statement was demonstrably false. While three of those suspended served on the interview panel, the other three did not. The panel itself consisted of five members, yet the party suspended only three. All three witnesses received suspensions, even though one of them did not hold an official branch role.
THE ALLEGED VIDEO RECORDING
The email went on to state:
“It is also alleged that during this interview/event a video recording was made, which on its own is against Branch Rule 6.22.”
The branch rules appear to have been updated on 6th November 2025, just four days before the first interview took place. the new rules were not forwarded to all the panel members or witnesses. Rule 6.22 is a new addition. The old rules are freely available here; however, the new rules are not online at the time of writing this blog.
Branch Rule 6.22 states the following: “Video or audio recording of branch meetings is strictly prohibited. Failure to comply with this provision may result in disciplinary action.” Clearly it prohibits the video recording of branch meetings; however, the glossary within the rules defines branch meetings as “meetings of all eligible branch members and branch officers.” The interviews were not open to all members, and not all branch officials received invitations. As a result, the interviews did not meet Reform UK’s own definition of a branch meeting, and video recording was therefore permitted.
The verdict letter (soon to be released) states, “The committee is further satisfied that the session was recorded.” This wording suggests that Reform UK has ignored its own rules, which only prohibit the recording of branch meetings. This was not a branch meeting according to Reform UK’s own rules and definitions.
Although the interviews were not a training exercise, organisations often video-record interviews for future training purposes. All three candidates were asked whether they wanted their interviews recorded for training purposes, and all three agreed. The videos were not given to Reform UK because we needed permission from everyone featured in them to comply with general data-protection guidelines. Moreover, if the scenarios had caused embarrassment, anyone sharing the video would have compounded that embarrassment. Reform UK claimed that we did not need permission because the matter was internal. At this point our trust in Reform UK was at its lowest; as such, their interpretation could not be relied upon.
Furthermore, if the video recording had breached party rules, responsibility would have fallen on all 12 people present, not just six. This selective enforcement further undermines the credibility of the allegation.
We will reiterate: we did not share the video with Reform UK because we wanted to safeguard the role-players and candidates and Reform’s interpretation of GDPR. Also, we did not trust Reform UK to keep the video private. Protecting our members’ rights was more important to us than our suspension. If permission is granted, we will post the videos here in due course.
The video exonerates all six accused individuals. An independent witness—a Yorkshire Live journalist who viewed the footage—confirms this. In the article, he writes: “A video of the interview—seen by YorkshireLive […]—shows that at no stage does he kiss the candidate’s head or sit on his lap.” The full article is available at Yorkshire Live. Yorkshire Live news article
PARTY SECRETARY OR CHAIRMAN?
The following issue is complicated by the specific roles individuals hold within the party. It is worth noting at this stage, for future reference, that the Party Secretary must be a barrister.
A further issue arises from the following statement in the email: “Under constitutional provision 11.10, for matters such as these, the Party Secretary shall convene as soon as practicable an Emergency Disciplinary Panel.”
Articles 11.9–11.12 fall under the heading “Emergency Powers” and set out a clear sequence for their exercise, indicating that the constitution intends them to operate in a specific order. Article 11.9 provides that, in cases of exceptional gravity and urgency, the Party Chairman must initiate the process by exercising the relevant powers and notifying the Party Secretary.
The suspension email makes no reference to Article 11.9. Instead, it invokes Article 11.10 directly. The email was sent and signed by the General Secretary, not the Party Chairman, and did not include the original complaint. This suggests that the accusation may reflect the General Secretary’s own interpretation rather than a formally initiated process.
By invoking an emergency disciplinary procedure, the party necessarily treats the matter as one of exceptional gravity and urgency. In such cases, the constitution is explicit: the Party Chairman must initiate the process and notify the Party Secretary. That step is seemingly absent here. Instead, the action appears to have been taken solely by the General Secretary, contrary to the constitutional requirements.
One further omission
The suspension email also omitted both the opening words and the concluding language of Article 11.10, despite their importance to understanding the prescribed process. Article 11.10 states in full: “Upon being so notified, the Party Secretary shall convene as soon as practicable an Emergency Disciplinary Panel composed of himself (or an independent chairman appointed in accordance with the Rules made under Article XI.7 and XI.8) and not more than two voting members of the Board.”
The provision begins with the phrase “upon being so notified”, which confirms that someone, in this case the Party Chairman, must notify the Party Secretary before any action can be taken. None of the correspondence clarifies whether such notification occurred. Nor does it state whether the Party Chairman authorised the suspensions.
Any action taken without that authorisation would constitute a breach of the constitution and would bring the party into disrepute. The Party Chairman was invited to comment, but no response has been received to date.
Summary
-
The suspension email misstated the interview date as 13th November instead of 10th November. Reform UK never corrected this error.
-
The email falsely asserted that all six suspended individuals sat on the interview panel. Only three did.
-
The panel had five members, yet the party suspended only three panellists and three witnesses, including one person with no official role.
-
The party alleged that video recording breached Branch Rule 6.22, which applies only to branch meetings. The interviews were not branch meetings under the party’s own definition, making the allegation unfounded.
-
Reform UK enforced the rule selectively. Twelve people attended the interviews, but the party suspended only six.
-
The video fully clears all six individuals, a fact confirmed by an independent Yorkshire Live journalist who viewed the footage (in fairness this was not shared with Reform UK for the reasons mentioned above)
-
Reform UK allegedly invoked emergency disciplinary powers without following its constitution. Article 11.9 requires the Party Chairman to initiate the process in urgent cases. The party bypassed this step and cited Article 11.10 out of sequence.
-
The suspension email came from the General Secretary, not the Party Chairman, and omitted the original complaint.
-
The party omitted critical wording from Article 11.10, including the requirement that the Party Secretary, not the General Secretary act only “upon being so notified” by the Party Chairman.
-
Reform UK has not confirmed whether the Party Chairman authorised the suspensions. Requests for clarification remain unanswered.
There is a lot to digest in this episode, so we will leave it there for now. Part three can be found here.
Feel free to leave a comment or two.
Well put and it’s Reforms loss that they’ve lost some good people who have worked hard over the previous year