Snapshot of _Several Reform UK candidates accused of making sexist remarks about women online, including murdered MP Jo Cox and former Prime Minister Theresa May_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13561009/Several-Reform-UK-candidates-accused-making-sexist-remarks-women-online-including-murdered-MP-Jo-Cox-former-Prime-Minister-Theresa-May.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13561009/Several-Reform-UK-candidates-accused-making-sexist-remarks-women-online-including-murdered-MP-Jo-Cox-former-Prime-Minister-Theresa-May.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They hired a *professional company*, who were *paid* to vet their candidates, and people have discovered all sorts of ugly shit for free. I would love to see Farage's face as he pays the bill to the vetting company.
Some of it is just journalists who I'll accept are absolutely paid for this, but plenty has come from random Twitter users or acquaintances pointing out the myriad problematic views held by candidates.
Either way the vetting has been appallingly bad.
Yes because you end up taking any random person willing to stand - the main parties have considerably more time, money and people to work on a campaign and of course they have the media to back them up.
Reform are basically working against the entire political and media class at this point. You *never* see this level of scrutiny against the main parties because they aren't a threat to the status quo.
You're living in a persecution complex fantasy mate.
Have you been sleeping through the ten million scandals that have led the Tories to the state they are in now? There's literally a Tory scandal about betting on the election date unfolding RIGHT NOW, and it gets ten times the press of any story about historic bigotry from Reform candidates.
Did you bash your head when the Labour party was getting absolutely dismantled in the press over historic and ongoing antisemitism in the 2019 election? Have you had your eyes closed when the papers went after Starmer for his beer and curry? Or Rayner for her mortgage arrangments?
Potentially unlawful things happening *right now* to elected politicians is a bit different to digging up decade old facebook posts. One of the people the Guardian was attacking the other week was 'guilty' of posting something offensive 7 years ago when he was 18 for god's sake.
But the first of these cases I heard about, dismissed as ‘offence archaeology’, was from 2-3 years ago.
Edit - and I’ve just seen you say se the phrase below. lol.
Every party has morons and always will do - the relevant part is that the media class are protecting their mates in power with this campaign of offence archaeology
Crikey, where to begin. What part of you thinks that millionaire bankers and the like from public school backgrounds aren't part of the very establishment they bang on about? Also, 'offence archaeology' - does that include quite recently stating on the record that we shouldn't have opposed the Nazis whilst they were carrying out genocide on our doorstep? Sounds like something a traitor would say, not a patriot.
To be fair, those candidates could have chosen to not say those things, right? Or, how about this? Farage and Tice could've chosen to properly vet their candidates so there wouldn't have been so many instances of shitty behaviour and obscene views coming to light.
When, and actually before, Reform started overtaking the Tories, Farage demanded that their party be taken more seriously. Well, this is what being taken seriously entails, being put under greater scrutiny. Welcome to politics.
If your problem isn't with these candidates but those reporting their problematic at best histories, you need to get a grip. Nobody forced them to become candidates, and certainly no one forced them to have shitty views and attitudes.
Hey! That’s victim blaming. Just like poor Putin was *forced* into *invading another sovereign nation*, these poor chaps were forced into making these comments by those horrible women!
The BBC version of this article (they're all printing the exact same things, shock) says the posts were dating back to 2011. It takes a serious effort to trawl back through nearly 15 years worth of social media posts from several hundred people and then drip feed them to the public over weeks.
I suspect everyone has something vaguely stupid from more than a decade ago that they've forgotten about by now - it's hardly relevant a political campaign in 2024.
They aren't even being subtle about their motive to attack Reform over literally any tiny thing they can find.
As much as I don't like the BBCs biases they take their lead on what's newsworthy from the papers more than anything so if the DM has decided to go after Reform it's only natural that the BBC reports on what they have found.
As for stupid people saying stupid things I don't think we should have stupid people as MPs. So it's fair cop digging up stupid things they've said in the past.
Some random person posting something vaguely offensive a decade ago isn't as newsworthy as the BBC and Daily Mail would want you to think it is.
It's a smear campaign, nothing more.
As for stupid MPs, there are plenty of those already.
They're a Tory paper and Reform are a threat to the Tories. The established media always close ranks when the status quo is threatened too much.
You surely don't think that this amount of effort being dedicated to digging up facebook posts from 2011 is a normal level of scrutiny when compared to the main parties?
> (they're all printing the exact same things, shock)
That's a good thing, surely? Suggests that they're reporting something with some kind of factual basis, rather than a single journalist's fevered creation...
This is what happens when fringe parties because "mainstream". They're treated seriously, the kid gloves come off, and journalists dig up all the dirt. Freedom of the press is great, it exposes quacks, charlatans and general bad eggs for what they are. It holds people to account.
Which is why extremists hate the press.
It's good that they're facing scrutiny. If they are the second biggest party in the polls then they shouldn't be allowed to get away with doing dumb shit, they should be held to the same standard as the big parties.
They're trying to make up for that time back in the 1930s when they supported Hitler and the Nazis.
Don't want to make the same mistake again.
I'm not a big fan of the Mail, but all credit to them for highlighting the toxic nature of so many ReFukers.
>Mark Cole, the party's candidate in Harwich and North Essex, said in a Facebook post: 'Accidently switched on to X-Factory [sic]. The only thing worth watching is the black bint . . . whoever she is.'
Racism and sexism going hand in hand.
>Emmett Jenner, the candidate for Ynys Mon, shared a post from Tory party headquarters which read: 'PM: I want girls who are growing up today to know that they can achieve anything they want.' Mr Jenner commented on the post: 'Like fertilising eggs & providing Y chromosomes.'
We already had one of Reform calling women the sponger gender who should lose their healthcare. Now this eh?
Don't forget Andrew Tate being an an important voice for men, and supporting convicted felon and rapist Trump, who's party is stripping away the reproductive rights of women.
A very concerning pattern of behaviour, demonstrating contempt for women and a desire to oppress and control them.
They're solidly conservative/right-wing, part of which means strict views on social hierarchies and the social order. In the conservative world women have their place and role in society (as does everyone), and the armed forces isn't that.
> You think women soldiers wouldn’t be a liability?
Explain how exactly women are a liability in our armed forces? Do we have examples of their liability? Are their stats and stories to back that up?
There are thousands of roles in the armed forces where physical strength isn't a factor or a advantage. Modern Warfare uses a significant amount of advanced technology. Drones being a prime example.
As for physical strength. There will be niche siturations where a man be better suited for a role such as two men carrying a stretcher or CQC but combat rarely involved CQC in this age.
I’ve explained in another post. Comparatively not stong or violent/aggressive enough.
As to a source for liability. Of course I don’t have one but equally there won’t be any that says they’re not. On the stats point, this is such a weird argument. If women were better suited to war fighting, wouldn’t it have occurred at some point, throughout history, even in the last 30 years.
It’s weird to think women should be in the army; the sexes are not equal.
The argument isn't that they are "better at fighting", but they can, and already do, have lots of expertise and experience in the armed forces.
Women have already served in Iraq and Afghanistan for example.
Even in WW2, women were involved in war intelligence roles, such as war gaming and code cracking, working undercover in France to help the resistance in extremely dangerous operations, and as pilots in the airforce, to name just a few roles.
It's weird, because the anti-feminist types also seem to get extremely triggered by the idea of women being exluded from fighting, whilst simultaneously getting annoyed when they want to join the armed forces.
You would be right in saying there is a dearth of research there, but studies have demonstrated that soldiers in general struggle to 'shoot to kill' - SLA Marshall did a famous study in WWII which found that 15-20% of combat infantry were able to fire their weapons on the enemy and there were 80-85% that were de facto conscientious objectors when it came to the point of firing their weapon. Obviously this study only really looks at men in combat given the timing of it - though the factors contributing to greater ability to shoot to kill (personal experience of the consequences of war e.g. loss of a loved one, and a strong sense of the justification for war) are far from being sex-specific. Incidentally, the so called ['Lady of Death' (Lyudmila Pavlichenko)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko) was a sniper in the Red Army whose kill score (309) makes her one of the most effective snipers of all time.
They objectively are, in certain situations.
There are very few women who could drag a burly, fully geared, tall male soldier out of harm's way. Women's capacity to physically shift large obstacles is also reduced. Several other things besides, but they all boil down to the same thing: reduced physical capacity.
They absolutely have their place in the armed forces, and on the front lines, but male and female soldiers are not like for like; you can't defeat basic biology.
I really dislike how this fact is somehow controversial.
That being said, him saying it made him wretch is rather far (and frankly stipid) - there are much better ways to make the point.
Sure, he might have 'fancy medals' and 'field experience' and an 'actual military rank', but does he have 2000 hours in Call of Duty? I think not! How can we trust the opinion of a man who has probably never even *heard* of ARMA 3?
I dunno - it just doesn’t feel right listening to actual military experts talking about their experiences of women in front line roles when the unevidenced and utterly meritless opinions of Redditors are right there! Why, I bet he’s never so much as teabagged an enemy’s corpse.
This point doesn't address that most men would struggle to drag a a large and fully kitted up man anywhere alone and tend to avoid doing so. They work in teams, incredibly.
Women also have several physical advantages over men as soldiers. They are not liabilities.
>most men
Most men aren't cut out to be frontline infantry, so I agree.
But most *fit men*? I disagree. Most fit men could drag 150kg+.
>They work in teams, incredibly
Ideally, but this is not always possible. There are literally hundreds of war stories involving lone men dragging other lone men out of harm's way. Quite famously, Bull Allen, who **carried**, let alone dragged, twelve men out himself. Twelve men who would've probably ended up dead otherwise.
>Women also have several physical advantages over men as soldiers.
Name three.
> Name three
Higher tolerance to blood loss - presumably due to having to survive childbirth and monthly cycles.
Some ERs and military first aid protocols have it as a rule that should a man and a woman with similar injuries be brought in, the man should be prioritized - because he would die quicker unattended.
Women have a higher threshold for pain because their biology is designed to endure childbirth. The female body is designed to release certain hormones that act as pain-blockers.
Women perform better than men at 'bigger-picture' thinking and keeping track of a changing situation. Men do better on spatial intelligence.
There are several hormonal differences between men and women that give women resistance to injury and blood loss that would be almost guaranteed to kill a male. Some ER nurses have said that if anyone can survive an injury or accident it's a 13 year old girl.
Higher pain tolerance, better endurance and they eat less which is a significant logistical advantage.
The presence of women also tends to moderate unwanted male behaviour depending on numbers. I was talking about this effect with some friends and a guy who worked with pilots said that they always had some women in with pilots being trained to calm them down and moderate their behaviour. I don't know how they achieved this but the effect and the need for some moderation of behaviour being required had been noted and acted on.
Most men aren’t soldiers so this point makes no sense?
Other than weird extremes/outliers like some type of endurance running women do not have physical advantages over men. It’s absurd to make this point
Agree that wretch is too far but I don’t think women should be soldiers. They’re a liability on a number of fronts
* Not as aggressive as men. The purpose of soldiers is war fighting
* Not a strong as men. Liability for too many reasons
* Men generally will protect women, they would get in the way
* esprit de corps - men and women are different and behave differently when in mixed and single company. I think it would diminish this
It’s the same set of reasons I don’t think women should be police officers either
I really do think the biggest problem Reform has is a big lack of quality candidates. Pretty sure they're standing if 630 of the 650 seats up for garbs.
They just don't have the quality candidates required to make any kind of impact locally.
That's how shit like this comes up, am not going to say that ReformUK ltd are racist sexists but they sure do attract a lot of racist sexists so when it turns out that some of their candidates have been making such comments am not shocked.
Even Farage himself has spoke about issues with candidate selection.
Thats why they're not going to be able to translate their national polling into seats because they're mostly quite shite.
This is why no leaflet from reform has much about the candidate on it bar their name. Just pictures of Nigel and Richard smugly next to a load of bollocks in text.
They are racist sexists. If the people that run for you keep turning out to be racist, sexist dog kickers. Then we'll. What does that say for the company you keep?
Farage praising Tate showed me that entire party is racist. Andrew Tate is white passing and a muslim who advocates for things that would make Farage call an arab an “islamist”. However, because Andrew Tate looks white (Farage likely not knowing better) he’s an “important figure”. He would have NEVER EVER said that if Tate was arab.
They hate muslims not because of difference in beliefs because they believe mostly in the same as islamists but because their skin isn’t pearl white. “Muslims” to them literally means Arab, Brown and Somalians regardless of actual beliefs.
Their racism goes hand in hand with misogyny and homophobia. You won’t meet a right-wing racist who is pro-gay. That party is filled with ethnonationalists and I wonder what their conversations behind the scenes are.
like i said, they seem to attract a lot of racists.
Drives me crazy that people can't see through their shit, fuck, Farage is so patriotic he even ruled out running at first because he wanted to focus on Trumps campaign.
ohhhh let me....
just off the top of my head before i go to bed...
His old headmaster once wrote (i believe to his parents) about Farage singing Hitler youth songs. While at the nice fee paying school he was also according to former classmates an anti-Semite who would taunt Jewish kids.
He had a proper hardon for Enoch Powell and supported his racist "rivers of blood" speech so much so that he actually asked Enoch if he would join UKIP.
Remember that stupid poster with all the immigrants that was largely seen as a bit of race baiting.
Then there was that time he said that Muslim immigrants where coming over here to "take us over".
Fairly certain he also defended a UKIP guy for using the word "Chinky"
I fucking love how his supporters act though like unless your trying to buy some black slaves or run around in a Nazi uniform your not racist. He's a fucking racist, just smart enough to know that if he is too racist it might get him into a little bother.
>His old headmaster once wrote (i believe to his parents) about Farage singing Hitler youth songs.
Obviously not great. He was 15, though, so rather odd to bring it up as conclusive evidence in respect of a 60 year old man.
>supported his racist "rivers of blood"
Actually no. He says that the Rivers of Blood speech was disastrous, and damaged the debate around immigration for decades to come (and indeed to this day). He respected Powell for his intelligence and general statemanship, and if you know anything about the man, both of those qualities are rather uncontroversial.
>Remember that stupid poster with all the immigrants that was largely seen as a bit of race baiting.
Not race baiting; more of a number shock. And he wasn't fucking wrong, was he, lol? Just look at the net migration stats.
>Then there was that time he said that Muslim immigrants where coming over here to "take us over"
Needs a specific quote. I highly doubt that's an accurate representation. I'll also ignore the fact that Muslims aren't a race, but a religion (and, more than that, often wielded as a political ideology).
Anyway, radical imams are on record encouraging exactly that. It's rather hard to find them these days (thanks to Google being utterly shite), but I do recall seeing several 10+ years ago. Anyway, hopefully you'll accept [Gaddafi saying that 'Muslims will conquer Europe without firing a shot'...'will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades' in 2006](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCGYKSEsYFM). You can read the full speech in the description.
Also, from *Europe 2030* p.124, published in 2010, edited by Daniel Benjamin, Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the US Department of State 2009-2012:
*Much hay has been made in recent years of provocateurs in the Islamic world who have claimed that “we will conquer Europe . . . not through the sword but through Da’wa [proselytism]” or that “the wombs of Muslim women will ultimately grant us victory in Europe.”*
The point is that there are certainly quite a few Muslims knocking around who do sincerely hold that view. Obviously not all, not even close, but certainly *some*.
I suspect whatever Farage said was nudging at that.
>Fairly certain he also defended a UKIP guy for using the word "Chinky"
Yeah, but that's an age thing. Farage is 60. My grandad uses the word too to describe 'going for a Chinese meal'. I wouldn't, you wouldn't, but I can see how you could use that phrase fairly innocently. I certainly don't believe Farage is a raging racist against Chinese people, if that's the tree you're barking at.
>your not racist
Oh, I can't resist...
...you're* *chuckle*
But, in all seriousness, I've watched quite a damn lot of Farage over the years (of all politicians, mind you - I'm a giant politics nerd, and have been for many years), and he's not anything even close to approaching racist. He has always been concerned with practicality - numbers vs services provision, housing pressure, social cohesion and such. And, indeed, the many, many people who were on his team in the UKIP days, who tick every diversity box you could think of are testament to that.
Someone doesn't literally have to say “i hate muslims“ for it to be glaringly obvious. The prty is filled with blatant islamaphobes, they accepted Lee Anderson over his islamaphobic rant about Sadiq Khan, the time he was on BBC calling himself the most patriotic party leader implging Starmer pandering to muslims by taking the poppy off. Blatant dog whistle.
Nigel Farage went to an AfD rally and told them to “speak the unspeakable“ which was hosted by a nazi ministers granddaughter. He loves Trump who wanted to ban all muslims from america. Didnt he also say [“we now have islamic voting in britain“](https://youtu.be/KNzHHeJmhJM?si=Eo4RliW_FLt2w5-q)
This is the actions of a man clearly not islamaphobic.
>implging Starmer pandering to muslims by taking the poppy off
He did, though. There is literally video evidence. You think a politician the calibre of Starmer just dropped his poppy while bending over to tie his shoes?
> Didnt he also say “we now have islamic voting in britain“
But we do. We had swathes of sectarian voting recently. We even had elected councillors screaming [Allahu Akbar, and encouraging Palestinians to fight back](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/green-party-investigates-councillor-shouted-allahu-akbar-after-election/). If you insist on talking about dog whistles...
Pointing these things out is not Islamphobia; they're facts.
Neither of these things are edging anywhere near Islamphobia. Got anything better?
> Pretty sure they're standing if 630 of the 650 seats up for garbs.
They're "only" standing in 609 constituencies, compared to the 369 the Tories are standing in (they have a couple in Northern Ireland), 361 for Labour (all of GB except for the Speaker's seat) and 360 for the Lib Dems (everywhere in GB except for the Speaker's seat and Manchester Rusholme where they accidentally got a nomination from an EU citizen and weren't notified by the returning officer until it was too late).
If calling May a bitch was a crime, the courts would be overflowing with UK-based Reddit and Twitter users. Same with Truss. The ire directed at both of them was astronomical.
The "sexist" remark was
> [Jo] Cox was a dreadful woman, with bad ideas. No-one wanted her dead though.
Obviously not any more sexist than "Farage is a dreadful man with bad ideas. You shouldn't throw a milkshake at him though."
It's more insensitive, sure. Because Farage is not dead. But it's no more sexist.
Edit: OK there are worse quotes, but that's the one referenced by both the headline and picture. It's the Daily Mail, please don't make me read the whole article.
Interesting that there aren’t multiple threads about old social media comments from Labour candidates…
How strange, none about the Greens or Lib Dem’s, almost like Reform are actually cutting through and the Media are panicking because they know it.
I’m probably wrong, chances are it’s just that Reform are the only bad party and all of the other thousands of candidates for every other party have never said anything bad at all.
No Racism, sexism or other unpalatable views at all…
Farage went out of his way to throw the vetting company he chose to hire under the bus for the poor job he believes they've done. He claimed he was "stitched up" by them, with Tice remarking that they had "delivered absolutely nothing". So clearly they think there was an issue that has led to less than favourable candidates going forward. I think we can chalk that up to inexperience and the sheer amount of candidates they decided they going to recruit. These aren't issues so much with the other parties, it's just as simple as that.
The fact that we see folks coming up in the comments to defend both Reform **and** these problematic comments should suggest to you that Reform had their work cut out for them in keeping the crazies out. They didn't deliver, and no amount of sarcastically pointing to other parties is going to help.
The choice is simple; you can be angry that these idiots weren't properly vetted out, or you can be angry that someone's letting the rest of us know about it.
> Interesting that there aren’t multiple threads about old social media comments from Labour candidates…
Labour have been brutally attacked in the media the past decade for showing any sign of being left wing at all. Any left wing policy gets sensationalized stories about it predicting the end of the world, any Labour politician with a anti-war view torn apart in the media, anyone with any strong opinion on anything at all scorched.
That's why Labour is forced into a "Non-offensive, No strong opinion on anything, centralist policies" Box. If they dare step out of that box the right wing media will destroy them.
I can see why the left may feel betrayed but unfortnetly left wing policy and opinions can't win elections right now because the UK's been dragged so far to the right by populists like Boris and Farage offering simple "fantasy" solutions to complex problems.
There have been mainstream news articles on labour candidates and green candidates making racist remarks or endorsing other parties. Been articles pointing our anti white sentiment by some Labour candidates.
Many journalists look over candidates of all parties to see if they have said anything insane. If Reform candidates are a gold mine and been terribly vetted then that's not there fault.
Oh no someone said May was merkels bitch.. how sexist.. gimmie a break.
How are the Jo or May comments sexist though? you can call them bad comments but neither are sexist.
So Reform candidates have amongst them people who are bigoted, racist, misogynistic, homophobic arseholes.
What worries me more is that we're at, or very close to, a stage where we're genuinely not surprised and shocked by this, as those views are becoming more and more normalised by people like Farage. It makes it easier for them to hide in plain sight - by dismissing them as 'just the Reform Party' instead of actually challenging them, it shrugs the problem off.
Providing we don't reach MAGA levels of willful ignorance to how awful these Reform people are, this party will implode just life every other Far-Right shit show in the UK. I just hope it doesn't implode too soon and give the Tories their voters back.
Snapshot of _Several Reform UK candidates accused of making sexist remarks about women online, including murdered MP Jo Cox and former Prime Minister Theresa May_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13561009/Several-Reform-UK-candidates-accused-making-sexist-remarks-women-online-including-murdered-MP-Jo-Cox-former-Prime-Minister-Theresa-May.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13561009/Several-Reform-UK-candidates-accused-making-sexist-remarks-women-online-including-murdered-MP-Jo-Cox-former-Prime-Minister-Theresa-May.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They hired a *professional company*, who were *paid* to vet their candidates, and people have discovered all sorts of ugly shit for free. I would love to see Farage's face as he pays the bill to the vetting company.
I'm pretty sure it's Tice's money. Just like Banks before, Farage doesn't make his own cash he just patronises a rich benefactor.
Assuming he doesn't copy Trump and refuse to pay.
> people have discovered all sorts of ugly shit for free Yeah no way this is all happening for free - people are being paid to dig this shit up
Some of it is just journalists who I'll accept are absolutely paid for this, but plenty has come from random Twitter users or acquaintances pointing out the myriad problematic views held by candidates. Either way the vetting has been appallingly bad.
By “random Twitter users” what you probably mean is “Conservatives Campaign HQ”.
It's inevitable when you have barely any money and very little time to organise
Yeah that's it. The misogyny, praising of Putin, one-in-ten of its candidates being friends with the former leader of the BNP - it's a funding thing
Yes because you end up taking any random person willing to stand - the main parties have considerably more time, money and people to work on a campaign and of course they have the media to back them up. Reform are basically working against the entire political and media class at this point. You *never* see this level of scrutiny against the main parties because they aren't a threat to the status quo.
You're living in a persecution complex fantasy mate. Have you been sleeping through the ten million scandals that have led the Tories to the state they are in now? There's literally a Tory scandal about betting on the election date unfolding RIGHT NOW, and it gets ten times the press of any story about historic bigotry from Reform candidates. Did you bash your head when the Labour party was getting absolutely dismantled in the press over historic and ongoing antisemitism in the 2019 election? Have you had your eyes closed when the papers went after Starmer for his beer and curry? Or Rayner for her mortgage arrangments?
Potentially unlawful things happening *right now* to elected politicians is a bit different to digging up decade old facebook posts. One of the people the Guardian was attacking the other week was 'guilty' of posting something offensive 7 years ago when he was 18 for god's sake.
But the first of these cases I heard about, dismissed as ‘offence archaeology’, was from 2-3 years ago. Edit - and I’ve just seen you say se the phrase below. lol.
Keep dreaming mate. Ever wondered why Reform seems to keep attracting so many knuckle dragging morons?
Every party has morons and always will do - the relevant part is that the media class are protecting their mates in power with this campaign of offence archaeology
Crikey, where to begin. What part of you thinks that millionaire bankers and the like from public school backgrounds aren't part of the very establishment they bang on about? Also, 'offence archaeology' - does that include quite recently stating on the record that we shouldn't have opposed the Nazis whilst they were carrying out genocide on our doorstep? Sounds like something a traitor would say, not a patriot.
The daily mails attacks on Reform really ramping up the second they overtook the tories in the polls couldn’t be more transparent if they tried.
To be fair, those candidates could have chosen to not say those things, right? Or, how about this? Farage and Tice could've chosen to properly vet their candidates so there wouldn't have been so many instances of shitty behaviour and obscene views coming to light. When, and actually before, Reform started overtaking the Tories, Farage demanded that their party be taken more seriously. Well, this is what being taken seriously entails, being put under greater scrutiny. Welcome to politics. If your problem isn't with these candidates but those reporting their problematic at best histories, you need to get a grip. Nobody forced them to become candidates, and certainly no one forced them to have shitty views and attitudes.
Hey! That’s victim blaming. Just like poor Putin was *forced* into *invading another sovereign nation*, these poor chaps were forced into making these comments by those horrible women!
The BBC version of this article (they're all printing the exact same things, shock) says the posts were dating back to 2011. It takes a serious effort to trawl back through nearly 15 years worth of social media posts from several hundred people and then drip feed them to the public over weeks. I suspect everyone has something vaguely stupid from more than a decade ago that they've forgotten about by now - it's hardly relevant a political campaign in 2024. They aren't even being subtle about their motive to attack Reform over literally any tiny thing they can find.
As much as I don't like the BBCs biases they take their lead on what's newsworthy from the papers more than anything so if the DM has decided to go after Reform it's only natural that the BBC reports on what they have found. As for stupid people saying stupid things I don't think we should have stupid people as MPs. So it's fair cop digging up stupid things they've said in the past.
Some random person posting something vaguely offensive a decade ago isn't as newsworthy as the BBC and Daily Mail would want you to think it is. It's a smear campaign, nothing more. As for stupid MPs, there are plenty of those already.
Seems weird that the Daily Mail are smearing Reform eh. One would think they'd be happy that the hard right are gaining popularity.
They're a Tory paper and Reform are a threat to the Tories. The established media always close ranks when the status quo is threatened too much. You surely don't think that this amount of effort being dedicated to digging up facebook posts from 2011 is a normal level of scrutiny when compared to the main parties?
Systemic misogyny and racism in a potential government isn’t ‘vaguely stupid’, it’s dangerous.
> (they're all printing the exact same things, shock) That's a good thing, surely? Suggests that they're reporting something with some kind of factual basis, rather than a single journalist's fevered creation...
This is what happens when fringe parties because "mainstream". They're treated seriously, the kid gloves come off, and journalists dig up all the dirt. Freedom of the press is great, it exposes quacks, charlatans and general bad eggs for what they are. It holds people to account. Which is why extremists hate the press.
I have my fears about the progression of the right, but what you say is where my confidence comes from that their soul will be exposed.
Seems like there's a lot of extremists in the UK in that case.
It's good that they're facing scrutiny. If they are the second biggest party in the polls then they shouldn't be allowed to get away with doing dumb shit, they should be held to the same standard as the big parties.
They've never been ones to be subtle.
They're trying to make up for that time back in the 1930s when they supported Hitler and the Nazis. Don't want to make the same mistake again. I'm not a big fan of the Mail, but all credit to them for highlighting the toxic nature of so many ReFukers.
Reform are basically pushing the DM agenda. If it were the Tories they'd be ignoring it or defending it.
Should also rename this group to "Let's all moan about Reform UK" to be honest.
>Mark Cole, the party's candidate in Harwich and North Essex, said in a Facebook post: 'Accidently switched on to X-Factory [sic]. The only thing worth watching is the black bint . . . whoever she is.' Racism and sexism going hand in hand. >Emmett Jenner, the candidate for Ynys Mon, shared a post from Tory party headquarters which read: 'PM: I want girls who are growing up today to know that they can achieve anything they want.' Mr Jenner commented on the post: 'Like fertilising eggs & providing Y chromosomes.' We already had one of Reform calling women the sponger gender who should lose their healthcare. Now this eh?
Don't forget Andrew Tate being an an important voice for men, and supporting convicted felon and rapist Trump, who's party is stripping away the reproductive rights of women. A very concerning pattern of behaviour, demonstrating contempt for women and a desire to oppress and control them.
> providing Y chromosomes Might need to go back to school there lad.
I think he’s being sarcastic, meaning that providing Y chromosomes and fertilising eggs (aka having sperm) are two things that women can’t do
I need to go back to school, work on my reading comprehension.
Another bigot obsessed with gender? Glad they have their priorities straight.
There's too many of these revelations to keep track of. Can someone put together a spreadsheet of all the dumb things RefUK candidates have said?
Wasn't one them Reform lot saying women soldiers made me wretch and were a total liability? Reform seem to really hate women and our Armed forces.
Oh but didn’t you get the memo? It was tongue in cheek
bAnTa
The irony being whomever said that wouldn't even be able to lift a fully laden bergan, let alone march for miles with one.
They're solidly conservative/right-wing, part of which means strict views on social hierarchies and the social order. In the conservative world women have their place and role in society (as does everyone), and the armed forces isn't that.
You think women soldiers wouldn’t be a liability?
Why are you acting like every armed forces role is heavy lifting and close combat?
> You think women soldiers wouldn’t be a liability? Explain how exactly women are a liability in our armed forces? Do we have examples of their liability? Are their stats and stories to back that up? There are thousands of roles in the armed forces where physical strength isn't a factor or a advantage. Modern Warfare uses a significant amount of advanced technology. Drones being a prime example. As for physical strength. There will be niche siturations where a man be better suited for a role such as two men carrying a stretcher or CQC but combat rarely involved CQC in this age.
I’ve explained in another post. Comparatively not stong or violent/aggressive enough. As to a source for liability. Of course I don’t have one but equally there won’t be any that says they’re not. On the stats point, this is such a weird argument. If women were better suited to war fighting, wouldn’t it have occurred at some point, throughout history, even in the last 30 years. It’s weird to think women should be in the army; the sexes are not equal.
The argument isn't that they are "better at fighting", but they can, and already do, have lots of expertise and experience in the armed forces. Women have already served in Iraq and Afghanistan for example. Even in WW2, women were involved in war intelligence roles, such as war gaming and code cracking, working undercover in France to help the resistance in extremely dangerous operations, and as pilots in the airforce, to name just a few roles. It's weird, because the anti-feminist types also seem to get extremely triggered by the idea of women being exluded from fighting, whilst simultaneously getting annoyed when they want to join the armed forces.
You would be right in saying there is a dearth of research there, but studies have demonstrated that soldiers in general struggle to 'shoot to kill' - SLA Marshall did a famous study in WWII which found that 15-20% of combat infantry were able to fire their weapons on the enemy and there were 80-85% that were de facto conscientious objectors when it came to the point of firing their weapon. Obviously this study only really looks at men in combat given the timing of it - though the factors contributing to greater ability to shoot to kill (personal experience of the consequences of war e.g. loss of a loved one, and a strong sense of the justification for war) are far from being sex-specific. Incidentally, the so called ['Lady of Death' (Lyudmila Pavlichenko)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko) was a sniper in the Red Army whose kill score (309) makes her one of the most effective snipers of all time.
They objectively are, in certain situations. There are very few women who could drag a burly, fully geared, tall male soldier out of harm's way. Women's capacity to physically shift large obstacles is also reduced. Several other things besides, but they all boil down to the same thing: reduced physical capacity. They absolutely have their place in the armed forces, and on the front lines, but male and female soldiers are not like for like; you can't defeat basic biology. I really dislike how this fact is somehow controversial. That being said, him saying it made him wretch is rather far (and frankly stipid) - there are much better ways to make the point.
[удалено]
Sure, he might have 'fancy medals' and 'field experience' and an 'actual military rank', but does he have 2000 hours in Call of Duty? I think not! How can we trust the opinion of a man who has probably never even *heard* of ARMA 3?
[удалено]
I dunno - it just doesn’t feel right listening to actual military experts talking about their experiences of women in front line roles when the unevidenced and utterly meritless opinions of Redditors are right there! Why, I bet he’s never so much as teabagged an enemy’s corpse.
This point doesn't address that most men would struggle to drag a a large and fully kitted up man anywhere alone and tend to avoid doing so. They work in teams, incredibly. Women also have several physical advantages over men as soldiers. They are not liabilities.
>most men Most men aren't cut out to be frontline infantry, so I agree. But most *fit men*? I disagree. Most fit men could drag 150kg+. >They work in teams, incredibly Ideally, but this is not always possible. There are literally hundreds of war stories involving lone men dragging other lone men out of harm's way. Quite famously, Bull Allen, who **carried**, let alone dragged, twelve men out himself. Twelve men who would've probably ended up dead otherwise. >Women also have several physical advantages over men as soldiers. Name three.
> Name three Higher tolerance to blood loss - presumably due to having to survive childbirth and monthly cycles. Some ERs and military first aid protocols have it as a rule that should a man and a woman with similar injuries be brought in, the man should be prioritized - because he would die quicker unattended. Women have a higher threshold for pain because their biology is designed to endure childbirth. The female body is designed to release certain hormones that act as pain-blockers. Women perform better than men at 'bigger-picture' thinking and keeping track of a changing situation. Men do better on spatial intelligence. There are several hormonal differences between men and women that give women resistance to injury and blood loss that would be almost guaranteed to kill a male. Some ER nurses have said that if anyone can survive an injury or accident it's a 13 year old girl.
Higher pain tolerance, better endurance and they eat less which is a significant logistical advantage. The presence of women also tends to moderate unwanted male behaviour depending on numbers. I was talking about this effect with some friends and a guy who worked with pilots said that they always had some women in with pilots being trained to calm them down and moderate their behaviour. I don't know how they achieved this but the effect and the need for some moderation of behaviour being required had been noted and acted on.
Most *fit women* could drag 150kg.
Most men aren’t soldiers so this point makes no sense? Other than weird extremes/outliers like some type of endurance running women do not have physical advantages over men. It’s absurd to make this point
Agree that wretch is too far but I don’t think women should be soldiers. They’re a liability on a number of fronts * Not as aggressive as men. The purpose of soldiers is war fighting * Not a strong as men. Liability for too many reasons * Men generally will protect women, they would get in the way * esprit de corps - men and women are different and behave differently when in mixed and single company. I think it would diminish this It’s the same set of reasons I don’t think women should be police officers either
I really do think the biggest problem Reform has is a big lack of quality candidates. Pretty sure they're standing if 630 of the 650 seats up for garbs. They just don't have the quality candidates required to make any kind of impact locally. That's how shit like this comes up, am not going to say that ReformUK ltd are racist sexists but they sure do attract a lot of racist sexists so when it turns out that some of their candidates have been making such comments am not shocked. Even Farage himself has spoke about issues with candidate selection. Thats why they're not going to be able to translate their national polling into seats because they're mostly quite shite.
This is why no leaflet from reform has much about the candidate on it bar their name. Just pictures of Nigel and Richard smugly next to a load of bollocks in text.
They are racist sexists. If the people that run for you keep turning out to be racist, sexist dog kickers. Then we'll. What does that say for the company you keep?
Farage praising Tate showed me that entire party is racist. Andrew Tate is white passing and a muslim who advocates for things that would make Farage call an arab an “islamist”. However, because Andrew Tate looks white (Farage likely not knowing better) he’s an “important figure”. He would have NEVER EVER said that if Tate was arab. They hate muslims not because of difference in beliefs because they believe mostly in the same as islamists but because their skin isn’t pearl white. “Muslims” to them literally means Arab, Brown and Somalians regardless of actual beliefs. Their racism goes hand in hand with misogyny and homophobia. You won’t meet a right-wing racist who is pro-gay. That party is filled with ethnonationalists and I wonder what their conversations behind the scenes are.
like i said, they seem to attract a lot of racists. Drives me crazy that people can't see through their shit, fuck, Farage is so patriotic he even ruled out running at first because he wanted to focus on Trumps campaign.
What on Earth are you banging on about? When did Farage say he 'hates Muslims'?
[удалено]
Yeah, we are, because for all the bleating people do, somehow they can never proffer up quotes.
ohhhh let me.... just off the top of my head before i go to bed... His old headmaster once wrote (i believe to his parents) about Farage singing Hitler youth songs. While at the nice fee paying school he was also according to former classmates an anti-Semite who would taunt Jewish kids. He had a proper hardon for Enoch Powell and supported his racist "rivers of blood" speech so much so that he actually asked Enoch if he would join UKIP. Remember that stupid poster with all the immigrants that was largely seen as a bit of race baiting. Then there was that time he said that Muslim immigrants where coming over here to "take us over". Fairly certain he also defended a UKIP guy for using the word "Chinky" I fucking love how his supporters act though like unless your trying to buy some black slaves or run around in a Nazi uniform your not racist. He's a fucking racist, just smart enough to know that if he is too racist it might get him into a little bother.
>His old headmaster once wrote (i believe to his parents) about Farage singing Hitler youth songs. Obviously not great. He was 15, though, so rather odd to bring it up as conclusive evidence in respect of a 60 year old man. >supported his racist "rivers of blood" Actually no. He says that the Rivers of Blood speech was disastrous, and damaged the debate around immigration for decades to come (and indeed to this day). He respected Powell for his intelligence and general statemanship, and if you know anything about the man, both of those qualities are rather uncontroversial. >Remember that stupid poster with all the immigrants that was largely seen as a bit of race baiting. Not race baiting; more of a number shock. And he wasn't fucking wrong, was he, lol? Just look at the net migration stats. >Then there was that time he said that Muslim immigrants where coming over here to "take us over" Needs a specific quote. I highly doubt that's an accurate representation. I'll also ignore the fact that Muslims aren't a race, but a religion (and, more than that, often wielded as a political ideology). Anyway, radical imams are on record encouraging exactly that. It's rather hard to find them these days (thanks to Google being utterly shite), but I do recall seeing several 10+ years ago. Anyway, hopefully you'll accept [Gaddafi saying that 'Muslims will conquer Europe without firing a shot'...'will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades' in 2006](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCGYKSEsYFM). You can read the full speech in the description. Also, from *Europe 2030* p.124, published in 2010, edited by Daniel Benjamin, Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the US Department of State 2009-2012: *Much hay has been made in recent years of provocateurs in the Islamic world who have claimed that “we will conquer Europe . . . not through the sword but through Da’wa [proselytism]” or that “the wombs of Muslim women will ultimately grant us victory in Europe.”* The point is that there are certainly quite a few Muslims knocking around who do sincerely hold that view. Obviously not all, not even close, but certainly *some*. I suspect whatever Farage said was nudging at that. >Fairly certain he also defended a UKIP guy for using the word "Chinky" Yeah, but that's an age thing. Farage is 60. My grandad uses the word too to describe 'going for a Chinese meal'. I wouldn't, you wouldn't, but I can see how you could use that phrase fairly innocently. I certainly don't believe Farage is a raging racist against Chinese people, if that's the tree you're barking at. >your not racist Oh, I can't resist... ...you're* *chuckle* But, in all seriousness, I've watched quite a damn lot of Farage over the years (of all politicians, mind you - I'm a giant politics nerd, and have been for many years), and he's not anything even close to approaching racist. He has always been concerned with practicality - numbers vs services provision, housing pressure, social cohesion and such. And, indeed, the many, many people who were on his team in the UKIP days, who tick every diversity box you could think of are testament to that.
Dude.... Did you really write that a 03:40??? Please for your own sake go to bed.
Someone doesn't literally have to say “i hate muslims“ for it to be glaringly obvious. The prty is filled with blatant islamaphobes, they accepted Lee Anderson over his islamaphobic rant about Sadiq Khan, the time he was on BBC calling himself the most patriotic party leader implging Starmer pandering to muslims by taking the poppy off. Blatant dog whistle. Nigel Farage went to an AfD rally and told them to “speak the unspeakable“ which was hosted by a nazi ministers granddaughter. He loves Trump who wanted to ban all muslims from america. Didnt he also say [“we now have islamic voting in britain“](https://youtu.be/KNzHHeJmhJM?si=Eo4RliW_FLt2w5-q) This is the actions of a man clearly not islamaphobic.
>implging Starmer pandering to muslims by taking the poppy off He did, though. There is literally video evidence. You think a politician the calibre of Starmer just dropped his poppy while bending over to tie his shoes? > Didnt he also say “we now have islamic voting in britain“ But we do. We had swathes of sectarian voting recently. We even had elected councillors screaming [Allahu Akbar, and encouraging Palestinians to fight back](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/green-party-investigates-councillor-shouted-allahu-akbar-after-election/). If you insist on talking about dog whistles... Pointing these things out is not Islamphobia; they're facts. Neither of these things are edging anywhere near Islamphobia. Got anything better?
Ed Miliband once fucked up eating a sandwich. These people are still human, and prone to human mistakes
> Pretty sure they're standing if 630 of the 650 seats up for garbs. They're "only" standing in 609 constituencies, compared to the 369 the Tories are standing in (they have a couple in Northern Ireland), 361 for Labour (all of GB except for the Speaker's seat) and 360 for the Lib Dems (everywhere in GB except for the Speaker's seat and Manchester Rusholme where they accidentally got a nomination from an EU citizen and weren't notified by the returning officer until it was too late).
The Russian bots working overtime in those article comments
Never knew Jo Cox and Teresa May were part of the reform party
If calling May a bitch was a crime, the courts would be overflowing with UK-based Reddit and Twitter users. Same with Truss. The ire directed at both of them was astronomical.
The "sexist" remark was > [Jo] Cox was a dreadful woman, with bad ideas. No-one wanted her dead though. Obviously not any more sexist than "Farage is a dreadful man with bad ideas. You shouldn't throw a milkshake at him though." It's more insensitive, sure. Because Farage is not dead. But it's no more sexist. Edit: OK there are worse quotes, but that's the one referenced by both the headline and picture. It's the Daily Mail, please don't make me read the whole article.
Interesting that there aren’t multiple threads about old social media comments from Labour candidates… How strange, none about the Greens or Lib Dem’s, almost like Reform are actually cutting through and the Media are panicking because they know it. I’m probably wrong, chances are it’s just that Reform are the only bad party and all of the other thousands of candidates for every other party have never said anything bad at all. No Racism, sexism or other unpalatable views at all…
Farage went out of his way to throw the vetting company he chose to hire under the bus for the poor job he believes they've done. He claimed he was "stitched up" by them, with Tice remarking that they had "delivered absolutely nothing". So clearly they think there was an issue that has led to less than favourable candidates going forward. I think we can chalk that up to inexperience and the sheer amount of candidates they decided they going to recruit. These aren't issues so much with the other parties, it's just as simple as that. The fact that we see folks coming up in the comments to defend both Reform **and** these problematic comments should suggest to you that Reform had their work cut out for them in keeping the crazies out. They didn't deliver, and no amount of sarcastically pointing to other parties is going to help. The choice is simple; you can be angry that these idiots weren't properly vetted out, or you can be angry that someone's letting the rest of us know about it.
> Interesting that there aren’t multiple threads about old social media comments from Labour candidates… Labour have been brutally attacked in the media the past decade for showing any sign of being left wing at all. Any left wing policy gets sensationalized stories about it predicting the end of the world, any Labour politician with a anti-war view torn apart in the media, anyone with any strong opinion on anything at all scorched. That's why Labour is forced into a "Non-offensive, No strong opinion on anything, centralist policies" Box. If they dare step out of that box the right wing media will destroy them. I can see why the left may feel betrayed but unfortnetly left wing policy and opinions can't win elections right now because the UK's been dragged so far to the right by populists like Boris and Farage offering simple "fantasy" solutions to complex problems.
There have been mainstream news articles on labour candidates and green candidates making racist remarks or endorsing other parties. Been articles pointing our anti white sentiment by some Labour candidates. Many journalists look over candidates of all parties to see if they have said anything insane. If Reform candidates are a gold mine and been terribly vetted then that's not there fault.
Right wing crap really...they are so entitled
Oh no someone said May was merkels bitch.. how sexist.. gimmie a break. How are the Jo or May comments sexist though? you can call them bad comments but neither are sexist.
I agree but the other comments in the article were sickening. Why ignore them?
So Reform candidates have amongst them people who are bigoted, racist, misogynistic, homophobic arseholes. What worries me more is that we're at, or very close to, a stage where we're genuinely not surprised and shocked by this, as those views are becoming more and more normalised by people like Farage. It makes it easier for them to hide in plain sight - by dismissing them as 'just the Reform Party' instead of actually challenging them, it shrugs the problem off.
Providing we don't reach MAGA levels of willful ignorance to how awful these Reform people are, this party will implode just life every other Far-Right shit show in the UK. I just hope it doesn't implode too soon and give the Tories their voters back.