Reform claims Nigel Farage’s taxpayer-funded security has been slashed
According to the British reform, Nigel Farage reduced the security financed by the taxpayer and forced party donors to take steps.
Zia Yusuf, the head of the reform, said that the Parliamentary Security Department has cut the protection of the former UKIP leader in the last two weeks for ilen unexplained reasons ..
It was only hours after Mr. Farage claimed that Keir Starmer claimed that he had “encouraged violence, by defining a reform policy as a“ racist ..
Mr. Yusuf Times told Radio: “Two weeks ago, the authorities cut Nigel’s security details by 75 percent, and then we saw the most extraordinary 48 -hour demonization, and I will say it again, encouraging violence against the Bookmakers to become the next Prime Minister.”
He said the donors were accelerating to cover up.
He said: “What exactly my claim happened, that is, for reasons that cannot be explained in both houses, the parliamentary department, which is responsible for security, is responsible for security in both houses I decided to financially reduce the security of Nigel Farage.”
David Lammy comes after Mr. Farage claiming that he was “flirting with youth”, and Mr. Yusuf said that he made “worse” with his security.
Deputy Prime Minister’s comments referred to the allegations that Mr. Farage sang his Nazi songs as young and rejected the allegations at that time.
On Sunday, Sir Keir Starmer announced the policy of receiving permission to stay as a “racist” and “immoral”.
Before he was elected to Westminster, the reform British leader asked in a famous way: im I want to be a deputy? Can I spend every Friday in Clacton for the next five years? ”
Mr. Farage was not controversial for the first time with the body, but he had advised him not to keep advice for his founders before. He rejected it.
Last September, traditionally held on the last day of the week with voters said he was not told not to hold face -to -face meetings in his seat for security reasons.
However, the security services of the parliament objected to this advice, which would intervene in democratic duties as a deputy.
At that time he claimed that he was at the risk of being killed.
“Do I have an office in Clacton? Yes. Do I let the people flow through the door with their knives? No, no, no,” he said.
One of the House of Commons said: “The ability of members and staff to realize parliamentary duties safely in and out of the property is essential for our democracy.
Anima Any assessment of a security regulations or recommendations of an individual deputy is subject to a meticulous risk, which is the input of a number of professional authorities, carried out by security professionals.
“Although these are naturally kept under constant examination, we do not comment on certain details in order not to endanger the safety of MPs, Parliamentary personnel or members of the people.”
