Nigel Farage launched what he called a “squabble with the establishment”; Photo: Phil Noble/Reuters 4223678de837.html?direct=true&id=bc72b371-0215-4d99-b27b-4223678de837&template=articleRendererHTML' class='tmg-particle Sticky-nav wrp-bc72b371-0215-4d99-b27b-4223678de837' title= Information business “General Elections” -type='editorial' loading='eager' scroll='no'frameborder='0'allow='web-share' style='width: 100%; min-width: 100%; border: none; position: relative; display: block; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;'>
Nigel Farage threatened legal action against an audit firm run by a former Tory adviser, which he accused of “stitching up” reforms in the UK.
In April Reform signed a contract with Vetting.com and paid it £144,000 to screen out parliamentary candidates with extremist views.
The contract stated that Vetting.com would conduct social media checks on specific individuals, but Reform was subject to a number of revelations about the candidates, including that Hitler was “brilliant” at using personality traits to “inspire people to action.”
Vetting.com is co-owned by Colin Bloom, who served as the Conservative Party's faith adviser under Boris Johnson but severed his official relationship with Number 10 when Rishi Sunak became prime minister.
In a statement, The Telegraph and Vetting.com blamed the election for failing to complete reviews in a timely manner and insisted Mr Bloom was “politically neutral”.
Former adviser given CBE following Mr Johnson's resignation last year's honors list, former executive director of the Conservative Christian Society, and Bloom Review author on how government interacts with religion last year.
Reform UK was aware of Mr Bloom's previous history of working with the Conservative Party when it used Vetting.com, but says the firm gave it assurances there would be no conflict of interest in working for Mr Farage's party.
> 
Mr Farage now says Vetting.com has failed Reform and the party has appointed lawyers to advise what action it can take against the company. The possibility of transferring the case to the police was also discussed, party sources say.
Reform sources also claim that Vetting.com has now offered to refund the money in full, but it will only arrive after the July 4 election.
Mr Farage said: “This is a set-up by the establishment. The owner of the testing company has deep ties to the Tory party and they have some serious questions to answer.”
Richard Tice, chairman of Reform UK, said: “In April, a professional fact-checking company was paid a six-figure sum to vet the Reform candidates. They promised a deep dive, particularly into social media, and negative press checks, and obtained details of our candidates, but delivered nothing.
“Suddenly, after nominations closed, a series of articles appeared in The Times and elsewhere, including some stories dating back 15 years. Something doesn't feel right and I have instructed lawyers to pursue the matter vigorously.”
Vetting.com is owned by Sphinx Technology Ltd, which in turn is owned by Mr Bloom and Roger Lampen, a New Zealand businessman specializing in recruitment.
Reform has signed an initial 12-month contract with the firm, paying £120,000 for an “initial package” to cover “high-level background check services” for up to 400 potential parliamentarians. candidates and political donors.
Checks had to include criminal records, sanctions, social media, negative media, right to work, identity checks and whether the candidate was a so-called politically exposed person. Additional candidate checks beyond the initial 400 were to be charged at £255 each and Reform said it had provided Vetting.com with a total of £144,000.
A Vetting.com spokesperson said: “A few months ago we approached all the major political parties in the UK to offer our automated background check services. We were glad when we were asked to help Reform.
“Everyone assumed that the elections would be held in the fall, which would give us the summer to complete this work. Given the clear need for candidate consent, and the fact that our systems require basic personal data such as dates of birth, our automated software was unable to process Reform candidates using the data they provided when submitting them.
“We have no intention of discussing this publicly and send our best wishes to the reforms as they shake up the UK's political landscape. Mr Bloom has had nothing to do with the UK Conservative Party since 2022 and remains politically neutral.”
Controversy that has affected Reform in recent days includes social media posts by Jack Aaron, a parliamentary candidate, said in 2022 that Hitler was “essentially incoherent in his writings and rationales” but used certain personality traits “brilliantly” , “to inspire people to take action.”
Mr Farage dismissed the row over Mr Aaron as “nonsense”, saying recognizing Hitler's abilities as an orator was not the same as agree with his views.
The candidate called the king “weak”
Another candidate, Ian Gribbin, suggested Britain should have remained neutral in the Second World War and said women were “sponge sex” and “subsidized by men just to breathe.” Mr Gribbin apologized for his comments and said he had unreservedly withdrawn them.
It also emerged that a number of reform candidates were Facebook friends of Gary Raikes, leader of the fascist New British Union.
< p>On Tuesday it emerged that the reformist candidate had called the king “weak” and said he was controlled by global elites.
Angela Carter-Begbie, standing in Queens Park and Maida Vale in north-west London, questioned the monarch's loyalty to Britain and said it was “time for King Charles to show where he really lies” [sic]. She added that she was “not a fan.”
On April 23, she wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that it “reports to the WEF,” referring to the World Economic Forum, said the 9/11 attack was “internal work” and said the Covid vaccine rollout was an “internal matter”. like the Holocaust.”
In response, Ms Carter-Begbie said: “It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. This is called freedom of speech. That's what the party is against – cancel culture.
“You have the right to have an opinion. A few years ago you would have agreed to disagree and then gone out for a drink and a laugh. This younger generation missed the opportunity. I would really like to see him again.”
Recent Comments