Reform UK candidate stands down over Lincolnshire charity fraud
A candidate who had been due to stand for Reform UK in a council election has pulled out after admitting defrauding a charity.Daniel Turner, 39, who was a manager at the Meridale Youth and Community Centre, in Sutton-on-Sea, Lincolnshire, pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation and fraud by abuse of position at Boston Magistrates' Court on Monday.Turner, from Horncastle, is due to be sentenced at Lincoln Crown Court on a date yet to be fixed.Reform UK said Turner's membership of the party had been suspended.
Turner was announced last month as the Reform candidate for Louth North in the Lincolnshire County Council elections on 1 May.His replacement is due to be announced later this week.
In a statement, Meridale trustees said Turner, who was formerly a trustee, centre manager and youth group leader, had betrayed the trust placed in him.They said Turner was originally suspended and later dismissed in May 2022 for gross negligence and misconduct in relation to personal misuse of Meridale IT systems.Following his dismissal, a thorough review and audit was conducted, the trustees said. Turner's actions had "significantly deprived" the organisation of funds.In total, trustees said he had defrauded the charity out of more than £28,600."This financial loss has delayed or curtailed projects and activities of direct benefit to Sutton-on-Sea, Trusthorpe and Mablethorpe," a spokesperson said.They added that the trustees were determined to recover the money under the Proceeds of Crime Act.A Reform UK spokesman said: "No one is officially a Reform UK candidate until nomination papers are handed in."Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
43 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Starmer focused on grooming victims not ‘grandstanding', says Reeves
Sir Keir Starmer has been focused on the 'victims' of grooming gangs and not 'grandstanding', Rachel Reeves has suggested, after the Prime Minister committed to a national inquiry. The Chancellor said that Sir Keir has been looking at 'actually doing the practical things to ensure that something like this never happens again'. After initially resisting pressure to implement a full probe, the Prime Minister said he had read 'every single word' of an independent report into child sexual exploitation by Baroness Louise Casey and would accept her recommendation for the investigation. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is set to address Parliament on Monday about the findings of the review. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage described the move as a 'welcome U-turn', while Kemi Badenoch called on him to apologise for 'six wasted months'. Asked whether the Prime Minister had changed his mind about the idea of a national inquiry, the Chancellor told the Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme: 'I think Keir Starmer, our Prime Minister, has always been really focused, as he was when he was director of public prosecutions, on the victims and not grandstanding. 'But actually doing the practical things to ensure that something like this never happens again, but also to ensure that the victims of this horrific abuse over many, many years is got to grips with and that people have answers to their questions.' Earlier this year, the Government dismissed calls for a public inquiry, saying its focus was on putting in place the outstanding recommendations already made in a seven-year national inquiry by Professor Alexis Jay. Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride criticised the Government's 'very late' decision to launch the inquiry, and claimed it had only come after pressure from the Tories. Sir Mel told BBC One's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg: 'It's a very late decision – it should have happened far, far earlier. 'We've been calling for this for many, many months.' He accused Sir Keir of previously dismissing concerns from senior Tory figures. 'Kemi Badenoch, Chris Philp and others have been derided by the Prime Minister for hopping on some kind of far-right bandwagon, dog-whistle politics and the rest of it,' Sir Mel said. 'That was the wrong response. This is just another example of the Prime Minister being pressurised by us into U-turning.' The inquiry will be able to compel witnesses to give evidence, and it is understood that it will be national in scope, co-ordinating a series of targeted local investigations. Speaking to reporters travelling with him on his visit to Canada on Saturday, the Prime Minister said: 'I have never said we should not look again at any issue. 'I have wanted to be assured that on the question of any inquiry. 'That's why I asked Louise Casey who I hugely respect to do an audit. 'Her position when she started the audit was that there was not a real need for a national inquiry over and above what was going on. 'She has looked at the material she has looked at and she has come to the view that there should be a national inquiry on the basis of what she has seen. 'I have read every single word of her report and I am going to accept her recommendation. 'That is the right thing to do on the basis of what she has put in her audit.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
British politics is in a loop and it's Farage's vision that's stuck on repeat
As so often happens, what Nigel Farage said on a recent visit to south Wales deserved endless pejoratives. It was ludicrous, condescending, half-baked, opportunistic and plain stupid. Even he didn't seem to know exactly what he wanted. At a Reform UK press conference in Port Talbot, he seemed to make the case for reopening the town's steel-making blast furnaces, before admitting that 'it might be easier to build a new one', though he also acknowledged that it would 'cost in the low billions' to do so. But he had even more dizzying visions of reopened Welsh mines. 'If you offer people well-paying jobs … many will take them,' said Farage, 'even though you have to accept that mining is dangerous.' The climate crisis, predictably enough, was not worth considering. He also did not offer any opinions about coal-related issues such as slag heaps, land slips, rivers that run black, and unimaginable underground disasters. When he was asked where new pits might be located, he blithely offered the opinion that it 'comes down to geology'. That is true, up to a point, but he would surely also have to think about the housing developments and business parks that often sit atop all those disused coal seams. The whole thing was – of course – politics on the level of pub bullshit, but Farage and his people presumably knew that. What mattered was the resulting spectacle: Britain's foremost populist proposing to 'reindustrialise' Wales, in the face of entirely reasonable doubts, mockery and outright opposition from voices easily maligned as the usual distant elites. In that sense the visit was a win, repeating a formula that has been working for a very long time. Besides Farage's own enviable political skills, there are obvious reasons for that. The first is to do with the fact that the basic social and economic conditions that fed into the rise of the UK Independence party and the Brexit referendum remain unchanged. It seems, in fact, to be 2016 for ever: Britain is still a country of anaemic growth and productivity, ongoing local austerity, stagnant wages and fear of the future. Those conditions explain people's ever-deepening disdain for mainstream politicians, and their sense that as life constantly goes round in circles, Westminster does not seem able or willing to break the pattern. Every grim rotation, moreover, seems to be accompanied by ever-more extreme manifestations of the country's dysfunctionality. Our passage to a new political era used to be marked by the results of elections and referendums. But of late, it feels as if more vivid proof of where we are heading is provided by civil disturbances. Last year's summer riots were an obvious example. In the same week that saw massed violence in Salford, we have just seen horrific outbreaks of racist violence in the Northern Irish town of Ballymena, and Farage has offered opinions that follow his usual slippery script: 'I just wonder whether it is not a deeper, broader problem we saw something of after Southport last year. You know what? If they'd listened to me, none of this would have happened.' A question not asked enough in political journalism is what life in contemporary Britain feels like. The answer in part comes down to a profound sense of tension and a constant, latent fear that something awful is about to happen. Farage attracts supporters by offering himself as an answer to that feeling – but to those who recoil from him, he is the source of it. Like Donald Trump, that combination makes him a very zeitgeisty politician. So does his presence on social media – which, even if most politicians do not yet understand it, has changed what is required to be a successful public figure even more radically than TV once did. Farage has 1.3 million TikTok followers, as many as every other Westminster politician combined. Particularly since Elon Musk turned Twitter into X, he is regularly cited and praised in the parallel news universe that millions of people now take their information from – full of scurrilous rumours and explanations for events rooted in QAnon-like conspiracies. That ecosystem blurs into the nightmarish version of reality X offers as a kind of mood music, represented by endless videos of violence and hostile altercations between members of the public. All this suits Farage – and Farage-ism – just fine. His key asset is a diagnosis of people's problems that gets simpler and sharper by the week: you are scared and struggling, he and his allies tell the public, because the government spends too much money on foreigners and is full of privileged and snobby people who know nothing of your pain. The Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham recently gave an interview to the centre-left journal Renewal, in which he mused on what effective political communication now entails. The governments led by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, he said, operated in 'a world of nuance', but social media 'just ended all of that'. What he said next sounded like a brisk answer to why Farage is winning: our modern means of communication, he said, 'changed politics, and politics hasn't changed enough to reflect that … people want instant opinions from elected representatives. They want authentic opinions'. Six weeks ago I watched Farage do a walkabout in a neighbourhood of Scunthorpe, surrounded by crowds of people jostling to take pictures of him on their phones. Not long after he had been presented with an Airfix tank, he commented that all the attention was 'the benefit of just being real, you know what I mean?' Clearly, just like Boris Johnson in his pomp, a great deal of his persona – the clothes, the pints, every calculated pronouncement – is actually affectation and pretence. But politics is now so low on charisma and the common touch that simply being comfortable in your own skin looks like a kind of spectacular normality. In that sense, Starmer and Labour's other high-ups might be Farage's ideal adversaries. With the possible exception of Angela Rayner, they are mostly bloodless and hesitant. They cling on to a presentational style that is 20 years out of date, built around pre-ordained news themes on the proverbial 'grid', set-piece interviews, and complicated and chronically abstract rhetoric: 'missions', 'renewal', the constant chase for growth. Of late, the prime minister has tried his own occasional approximations of Farage's approach, putting up such blunt and boastful online posts as: 'I've already returned over 24,000 people with no right to be here. And I won't stop there.' But that style rings hollow, because he doesn't have Farage's swaggering confidence nor any understanding of how to bring such directness to the way he talks about Labour's fundamentals: the economy, jobs, public services. There is also something to be said about how the government intends to change the country. After a wasted year, last week's spending review contained a surprising amount of good news, not least on housing. But it was all about the kind of investment that will not start to become visible until 2028 or 2029. Everyday life, it seems, will continue moving in ever-decreasing circles for another three or four years. That is a long time for Farage to carry on making mischief, as he illustrates an aspect of modern Britain too little understood – that, to an extent that vividly illustrates other people's colossal failures, he looks like the only front-rank figure who understands how 21st-century politics actually works. John Harris is a Guardian columnist
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
A useful enemy? Why Tories and Reform are calling net zero policy into question
Just as Labour forges ahead with net zero policies, the chief energy spokespeople of the UK's two main rightwing opposition parties are openly questioning long-settled climate science, in what seems like a mission to discredit and confuse the whole issue. It is a development that would have been unthinkable just three years ago, when the four-decade-long cross-party consensus on the climate still held firm. Even up to last year's general election, every mainland party other than Reform UK campaigned on a commitment to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But now the Conservative leadership has abandoned that target, and Reform – riding high in the opinion polls and celebrating a 30% vote share in the local elections – wants to make it the key battleground, after immigration, for the next general election. How on earth did we get here? In truth, Reform, which was founded in 2018, has long had climate-sceptic tendencies – despite Nigel Farage's short dalliance with pro-green politics in 2021, when he was paid to promote tree-growing by a carbon credit trading company. The party's doubt about climate science, however, appears to be worsening. Richard Tice, its energy spokesperson, told the Guardian: 'Scientists do not all have a consensus on this. Some view things slightly differently … Do I think that [the carbon dioxide that humans are putting into the atmosphere] will definitely change the climate? No. There is no evidence that it is.' This is not in accordance with the views of the vast majority of scientists. Tice suggested that rather than net zero, the answer to climate breakdown would be 'planting trees' and adapting. 'Temperatures were higher 3,000 years ago and humans adapted,' he said. More surprising is that the Conservatives' Andrew Bowie, the acting shadow energy secretary, who once declared he wanted Scotland to be 'one of the lead nations worldwide in achieving net zero', has taken a similar line. He told the Guardian that the world's leading authority on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was 'biased' and that the net zero by 2050 target was 'arbitrary and not based on science'. This claim was rejected by climate scientists, who confirmed that the UK's legally binding target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – put in place by Theresa May – sprang from the best global scientific advice. Emily Shuckburgh, the director of Cambridge Zero, the University of Cambridge's climate initiative, said: 'The 2050 target is not arbitrary but based on what science says is required globally and an assessment by the Climate Change Committee of what is appropriate for the UK to deliver in that context.' The breakdown of the climate consensus, which began after Boris Johnson left Downing Street in 2022, appears complete. The main difference on the issue now between Reform and the Conservatives is that the former would scrap net zero altogether and the latter may keep it, but for a later date. Why have both parties turned so decisively away from climate policy? Opinion polls show most people in the UK are concerned about the climate crisis and support policies to tackle it. Reform voters are no different, according to recent polling by More in Common commissioned by the campaign group Global Witness. It found that two-thirds of UK adults are worried about increasing damage from the climate crisis, and 71% of Reform-leaning voters support higher taxes on oil and gas companies. Luke Tryl, the UK director of More in Common, said net zero was not an important issue to most people who backed Reform. 'It's not what drives them,' he said. 'Seven out of 10 say they vote Reform because of immigration. Where there are concerns on net zero, it's generally over fairness – that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the burden.' But he is clear that despite widespread media coverage attacking net zero, and despite Reform's good showing in polls, 'any idea that Britain has turned into a nation of net zero sceptics is for the birds'. So is this positioning for the sake of business? Reform and the Conservatives frequently claim to be supporting business and jobs through their stance, but actually business voices have been clear in their support for net zero. Tania Kumar, the head of net zero policy at the Confederation of British Industry, said: 'Net zero and the new green economy are an economic growth opportunity for the UK. Businesses understand that.' A different reason was suggested by Nick Mabey, a founder director of E3G, a green thinktank, who suggested that opposing net zero was in line with the small-government, anti-statist approach of some on the right. 'They see it as state-intrusive, it doesn't fit with their deregulation instincts,' he said. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion But people tend to like regulation that keeps them and their environment safe – witness the sewage scandal, a clear demonstration of what companies do when lightly regulated. Mabey suggested pursuing deregulation was more in the interest of 'elite' backers of populists than their voters. Reform's environmental policy is extremely complex. Despite its strong stance against net zero, it does not see itself as anti-environment. It supports an amendment to the planning bill that would require swift bricks in all new houses, blocked by the government, and wants to take sewage out of British rivers, in part by banning foreign investors from owning water companies. Tice speaks enthusiastically of the need to plant more trees, recycle more and adapt to the impacts of the climate crisis, even though he casts doubt on the underlying science. Net zero seems to be some kind of 'useful enemy', argues Shaun Spiers, the executive director of Green Alliance, a thinktank. 'The cost of living crisis is biting and populist politicians are casting around for something to blame it on,' he said. 'Net zero, which sounds remote and technocratic, is a convenient target. It's replaced the EU as the thing on which all our ills can be blamed, often by the same people.' And there is good money in it too, he added. 'It's also worth noting that there is serious money behind the assault on net zero: it is not disinterested.' Reform and the Conservatives have prominent donors and supporters with a climate-denying outlook. For instance, Kemi Badenoch and her family recently spent a week as guests of the donor Neil Record, who chairs Net Zero Watch, an offshoot of the UK's main climate sceptic thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Record also helped fund Badenoch's campaign for Tory leader, giving £10,000. He wrote in the Telegraph that it was 'debatable in detail' whether burning fossil fuels increased carbon dioxide and caused dangerous global heating. One of the biggest donors to Reform is the shipping magnate Terence Mordaunt, the head of First Corporate Shipping. His personal company, Corporate Consultants, has given hundreds of thousands of pounds to Reform. He was previously chair of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and is now a trustee. Despite the feelings of Reform voters, Tice is clear: the party will make net zero its second most important battleground, after immigration, and his party appears united on that. But among Tories in parliament there is still a strong green caucus – the Conservative Environment Network (CEN), which still has 50 MPs. Badenoch's review of policy, including net zero, is still ongoing, despite her public attacks on net zero. Sam Hall, the director of CEN, warned that Badenoch was putting her party on a collision course with not just Labour and the British public but the laws of physics. 'The net zero target is driven not by optimism but by scientific reality: without it, climate change impacts and costs will continue to worsen,' he said. 'Abandon the science and voters will start to doubt the Conservative party's seriousness on the clean energy transition, damaging both growth and the fight against climate change.'
