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 of the process in the comments below.
WHAT WAS THE EMERGENCY? 
The Party imposed the suspensions 11 days after the event. During that period, further candidate interviews went ahead with the full knowledge of both the regional director and the county coordinator.
Reform UK has clearly defined procedures for handling complaints.
Article 11.1 states, “All members are encouraged to resolve issues informally through their local branch.”
Article 11.2 continues: “If informal resolution has failed, a Member wishing to make a complaint must submit it in writing to their Regional Director.”
Article 11.3 then provides, “Upon receipt, the Regional Director will acknowledge the complaint within thirty (30) working days and notify the Member against whom the complaint has been made.”
Only at Article 11.4 does the Constitution refer to escalation to the Disciplinary Committee. Branch rules also state that anonymous or unwritten complaints will not be acted upon. This would suggest there must be a written complaint; however, this was never presented.
We requested disclosure of the evidence relied upon to justify the suspensions, but the Party refused that request. A Subject Access Request (SAR) was submitted on 30th December 2025, triggering a statutory 30-day response period. That deadline has now passed, and no response has been received. This email was followed up, giving Reform a further seven days to respond. This matter has now been reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The regional director knew the next round of interviews would be conducted on the 20th November, one day prior to the six receiving their suspension email. If the matter genuinely constituted an emergency and if the correct procedures had been followed, those interviews would have been halted immediately had the regional director received the initial complaint. The party seemingly bypassed this staged process entirely and invoked emergency powers without explaining why the established procedures proved inadequate or why urgency suddenly arose 11 days after the alleged incident and only one day after the second round of interviews.
THE FIVE QUESTIONS
The suspension email required the six defendants to answer five questions in order to “appeal the suspension carried out under 11.5 of the Constitution, please reply to me with your response so that your views can be taken into consideration by the Emergency Disciplinary Panel.”
The instruction is clear and unambiguous: to appeal the suspension (this is important to remember), the defendants must respond to the five questions. What the email omits matters just as much as what it includes. It does not invite the accused to submit their own account of events or to provide a full statement in their defence.
Instead, it asks questions such as:
-
Did you try to prevent this taking place at the time?
-
Why did you not report this event to a Party official?
These two questions presume guilt; critics suggest that Reform UK reached their conclusions and asked these questions based solely on the complaint. Reform UK appears to have conducted no further investigation and sought no statements from the candidates or role-players. The party based the suspensions entirely on the original complaint, which it did not disclose to the six individuals concerned. One candidate received a phone call from Reform UK but could not take it at the time; when he later returned the call, Reform UK told him the matter had been resolved. This suggests that Reform UK recognised the need for further investigation but did not follow through with it.
Although the email did not request full statements, the six suspended individuals submitted them anyway, despite receiving no indication that the appeal process would consider such submissions. Each of the six, naturally, defended their actions in their own words.
Important note: At this stage, Reform UK had not conducted an investigation or received any statements from those involved except from the person who made the complaint.
The most serious accusation
The email made the following serious allegation:
“It is alleged you were part of this interview panel. While conducting the interview panel, a ‘role play’ segment was undertaken. It is alleged that during this role play, a male member was made to pretend he was gay and kiss another man, a candidate applicant, on the top of his head. The male member was also encouraged to sit on the candidate applicant’s knee in front of all who were present.”
However tempting it might be, please do not comment about the inappropriate wording used by Reform UK in the above quote.
Let’s break the accusations down.
“It is alleged you were part of this interview panel.”
Partly true, three of those suspended were on the interview panel, while three were not. Only one person from the interview panel was expelled.
“It is alleged that during this role play, a male member was made to pretend he was gay.”
At no point was anyone “made” to do anything. Again, the decision to portray a same-sex couple was taken jointly. We have written statements to prove this.
“[..]- kiss another man, a candidate applicant, on the top of his head.”
No, no one kissed anyone on the head or anywhere else. The author of a news article, who has seen the videos, can confirm this (Click here), as can witness statements that Reform UK did not seek. The party’s own verdict letter, sent by the Party Secretary-Barrister, corroborates this point when he reframes the accusation and states in the expulsion letter that the conduct involved “an air kiss to the top of the candidate’s head.” Once again, a lie that can be corroborated in the news article linked above.
“The male member was also encouraged to sit on the candidate applicant’s knee in front of all who were present.”
The role-players did not sit on anyone’s knee, nor did anyone encourage them to do so. Again, both the journalist who viewed the footage and the witness statements corroborate this. In the verdict letter, the Party Secretary-Barrister again reframed the original allegation, describing the conduct as “to move into the personal space of a candidate, to perform an air kiss to the top of the candidate’s head, and to engage in further physical proximity in front of those present.”
The original suspension email made no reference to a role-player “moving into the personal space”. Had it done so, we would have acknowledged that fact. One role-player did enter a candidate’s personal space, but only after the role-play had ended. The role-players and candidates were mutual acquaintances. No other interaction occurred. The journalist who reviewed the videos can also corroborate this. (I will say again, if permission is granted, we will share the videos).
The manner in which this is worded is compelling in itself. “Caused them embarrassment” – who? Both role-players have given statements saying they were not embarrassed; quite the opposite, they say they enjoyed the interview process. The panel members and witness voiced no concerns during the interviews despite having the authority to halt proceedings. All three candidates said the interviews were taxing but enjoyable. The only possible conclusion one could draw is vicarious embarrassment—a psychological phenomenon in which someone feels embarrassment on behalf of another. This does not mean the actions themselves were embarrassing or inappropriate; it merely reflects an individual’s subjective reaction to an occurrence.
We reiterate, if Reform UK had conducted an investigation and spoke with the role players and candidates, the matter could have been resolved quickly, without fuss and without the dia mess Sheffield Reform East now finds themselves in.
“and was deeply inappropriate”.
These four words say more about those at Reform UK than they do about those people suspended. What was “deeply inappropriate” about a same-sex couple seeking advice from their local councillor?
“As such, it would have been damaging to the Party’s interests and brought the Party into disrepute.”
Apart from the fact that it didn’t happen, how would an interview process depicting a same-sex couple damage the party’s interests and ‘brought’ the party into disrepute?
Eleven days had passed since the original email was delivered; a second round of interviews had already been conducted with some of the same people on the panel. One person who was suspended and sat on the panel in the original interview acted as a role player in the second round of interviews. He was the person who faced no further consequences.
The Verdict
Six people were suspended; of those, four were expelled from the party for life. One faced a six-month suspension, while the sixth faced no action at all. No explanation was given as to why the verdicts were different. Our opinion is that at some point these two people changed their story to suit the narrative to avoid further sanctions.
Obviously, the four who were expelled wanted to appeal this decision, but that was refused. That’s another story involving a barrister and a strawman defence. We will look at this in part four.
