Daniel Pocock’s personal blog | Debian

High Court: secret trial collapses due to confidentiality breaches

2026-10-17T23:00:00+01:00

On 7 October 2026, I submitted an application withdrawing the secret legal document served on Nigel Farage's Reform UK party/company. Specifically, I lost any remaining confidence in the procedure after discovering a second potential breach of confidentiality.

Before getting into the details, it is interesting to take a step sideways and look at how this type of thing happened in the Catholic abuse crisis. Specifically, on page 177 of the un-redacted report (case study 35) into the Archdiocese of Melbourne, we have the following story:

We heard from BTU, who said that Father Pickering sexually abused him for 12 years, beginning in 1966, when he was 11. BTU described being sexually abused by Father Pickering on numerous occasions, including on holidays with Father Pickering. For some of the time, BTU was an adult.

The first time that BTU told anyone of the sexual abuse was in 1968, when he disclosed to a priest during confession. The priest who heard his confession was Wilfred Baker. Afterwards, BTU had a conversation with Father Baker in the church about what he had confessed. A few months later, Father Pickering confronted BTU and told him that he was stupid for telling Father Baker.

We accept BTU’s evidence that he told Father Baker during confession in around 1968 that he was sexually abused by Father Pickering. It is not surprising that no action was taken in response to BTU’s disclosure given that Father Baker was himself an offender.

BTU said that his sexual relationship with Father Pickering ended in 1978 after BTU saw a naked boy, who he thought was about 15 years old, inside Father Pickering’s bedroom at the Gardenvale presbytery.

In October 1993 BTU approached a solicitor about his complaint and subsequently instructed the solicitor to send a letter of demand to the Archdiocese in relation to the sexual abuse.

On 23 December 1993, the Archdiocese received a letter of demand relating to a claim of sexual abuse of BTU by Father Pickering.

The first transgression occurred on 24 September 2026 when social control media became aware of the secret legal document even before it had been served. This was really unfair to all parties, including both Reform UK and myself as the petitioner.

Now nobody is allowed to say what we are talking about. All I can say is that somebody has been invited to a secret trial with Nigel Farage.

The court order does not prevent anybody talking or writing about the fact Reform UK Party Limited was hit with a winding-up petition in 2022.

On 28 September 2026, at about 3pm, Reform UK's lawyers sent me an application demanding the court aborts the procedure. The lawyers tried to trick me by including links to untrusted web sites to download documents allegedly related to the case. Due to the dangers of the download links, I didn't actually see the attachments until they were eventually sent to me later in the week as proper email attachments.

One of the law firms I spoke to referred me to another firm, 4-5 Gray's Inn Square who have a direct access program which allegedly reduces the cost of instructing counsel. I called them at approximately 6pm.

I told the clerk the names of the parties in the case and he asked me to send him all the documents about the case. He told me he was going to pass the documents around his colleagues in the office and reply to me by 9am the next day to inform me if somebody would represent me.

Click to listen to a recording of the call. The full transcript is below:

Download FLAC

clerk: 4-5 Gray's Inn Square

DP: Hello, I've started a debt recovery process and obtained a winding-up petition against Refom. The political party.

clerk: Right.

DP: and I'm looking for some help with that. They're quite mad.

clerk: OK, do you have a hearing date then?

DP: Yeah, the first of October.

clerk: The first October.

DP: There's some good news, I've got another creditor who came forward.

clerk: Silly question I'm pretty sure the.. is it definitely on the first because the ... is definitely, I think they only sit on Wednesdays.

DP: So they've sent me .. they're asking for an urgent injunction to

clerk: OK

DP: stop me publishing in the Gazette. So the actual winding up hearing is the eleventh of November.

clerk: ah perfect!

DP: So the thing is this injunction hearing, I could consent not to publish in the Gazette if we can push that hearing back if that will satisfy them.

clerk: ah OK brilliant I can definitely take a look for you and just seeing you don't have a solicitor on board do you?

DP: No, no I just submitted a statutory demand myself.

clerk: Umm

DP: On the first of September then all this really horrible stuff came out in the news. On the third of September it was the Channel 4 stuff, the undercover reporters. On the ninth of September the Met Police said they're on it. On the eleventh and twelfth it was those huge donations and on the fifteenth it was their leader in Wales on the assault charges.

clerk: Yeah

DP: and then on the twenty third they hadn't responded to my statutory demand so I immediately served the winding up petition.

clerk: OK brilliant! I can definitely have a look for you then. As this is Direct Access I won't be able to confirm on the phone. I'll leave you my email address and if its OK could you send me all the case details, if you've got any relevant papers, and then I'll have a look for you for some suitable options because I'm quite

DP: yeah is that the clerk's email address on your web site?

clerk: I'll give you my one so it's W M O U

DP: go ahead W

clerk: M O U

DP: O U

clerk: R I N O

DP: yes

clerk: so it's W Mourino at four dash five dot co dot uk.

DP: (typing) OK so I'm going to send these attachments right now. I was quite shocked this morning when I got the other creditor. It's British Gas. They haven't paid their electricity bills apparently. So they've got this seventy two million in donations that they're talking about publicly yet they can't afford to pay their bills.

clerk: Yeah so its one definitely look into. So um yeah if you send that over I'll definitely come back tomorrow morning and hopefully got some suitable options for you.

DP: Yeah the winding-up petition, the promise to pay, there are lots of videos online where they... the directors promise to pay people um but I'll just send you the documents to begin with.

clerk: Exactly.

DP: What time tomorrow would you be replying to me?

clerk: So I get in at nine tomorrow and then so hopefully by the time I get in I've got a few responses from different options so hopefully I'll be able to confirm something in the morning.

DP: OK great so what was your first name?

clerk: It's Will.

DP: Will, yeah I'll send that in the next two to three minutes. Actually, just stay on the phone I want to make sure that it doesn't get lost in the spam folder or anything.

clerk: What you can do just to be safe is copy in the one on our web site then. The generic clerks one.

DP: OK (typing) yeah if you haven't received it in five minutes then just check your spam and everything because ...

clerk: absolutely

DP: I've had a lot of problems with this recently sending attachments um and it just ends up in the spam folder.

clerk: so if I don't receive it can I just take down your number?

DP: Yeah its 0 2 0

clerk: 0 2 0

DP: 7 1 3 5

clerk: 7 1 3 5

DP: Seven thousand.

clerk: Seven thousand and may I take your name please?

DP: Daniel Pocock. ...

clerk: ... Brilliant, so yeah I'll look out for that and then if I don't receive it I'll just give you a call.

DP: Great, thank you Will. Bye bye.

clerk: Brilliant. Have a good evening.

On 29 September 2026, the clerk sent me an email:

Subject: 	RE: CR-2026-007405 High Court insolvency list / Reform UK (Nigel Farage, Richard Tice)
Date: 	Tue, 29 Sep 2026 09:09:50 +0100
From: 	[ redacted ]
To: 	Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro>

Good morning Daniel,

I hope you had a good evening.

Thank you very much for sending everything across.

I’ve asked around and unfortunately, we don’t have suitable options with the capacity to assist with this.

Would you like me to delete all correspondence given the sensitivity or recommend potential chambers to assist?

Kind regards,

[redacted]

Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7404 5252

4‑5 Gray's Inn Square
Gray's Inn
London WC1R 5AH
DX 1029 LDE

Three hours after receiving that email, I sent an email back to the Reform UK lawyers asking them to send me the missing attachments.

They eventually sent the documents as proper attachments. On 30 September 2026, Wednesday evening, I was looking at one of the documents and at the bottom I saw the name of exactly the same firm I had sent my own documents to on 28 September:

Remember, Nigel Farage asked for the un-necessary by-election on the premise that he was a victim of the Establishment. The exercise cost British taxpayers at least £250,000. What we see in my exchanges with 4-5 Gray's Inn Square is the behaviour of the Establishment and it feels a lot like they are doing a lot more work for Nigel's than for any other candidate.

If the by-election wasn't really about the Establishment then it must be about something else. Maybe there are other secret trials in progress that voters were never told about.

After observing the circumstances involving 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, I immediately sent a letter to the judge in the case explaining I had lost confidence in the procedure.

The following morning, on 1 October 2026, I sent an email to the same clerk at 4-5 Gray's Inn Square asking them to "Please kindly explain why you did not run a conflict check before asking me to submit names and documents to 4-5 Gray's Inn Square."

4-5 Gray's Inn Square never sent any response to this query. It is now radio silence.

I can not prove how many clerks and lawyers in the firm looked at the same attachments. I don't know if the same lawyer assisting Reform UK was accidentally given the opportunity to see my documents. Nonetheless, looking at the transcript of my phone call with these people, their email response the next day and subsequent radio silence when challenged about the affair, I feel there is a real possibility they failed to maintain information barriers, also known as Chinese walls. Whether this breach of confidentiality happened deliberately or by accident doesn't make a lot of difference.

On 7 October 2026, I took the next step and submitted a formal application to withdraw the secret legal document and put an end to the secret procedure.

The cost and potential side-effects of these incidents make the procedure uneconomical and result in an unacceptable risk of a judge making incorrect findings in a dispute.

This was not the first time somebody served one of these secret legal documents on Reform UK Party Limited. I doubt it will be the last time.

Secret trial on Monday, 19 October 2026

It is London's worst kept secret.

British press photographers have been carefully studying pictures of Count Binface so they can recognise the real Count Binface and distinguish him from random strangers wearing bins on their heads.

Court security staff have been briefed on the possibility of journalists wearing bins on their head to try and impersonate a novelty candidate and gain access to the Rolls Building in the Royal Courts of Justice.

MI5 and GCHQ have been working overtime investigating rumours about a plot to smuggle an emergency life raft into the court and inflate it in honour of Lifeboat crews harassed by lunatics from Reform UK.

Lunatics aside, Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidates may be the real winners. In defence of the secret legal claim, Reform UK have argued they don't have to follow through on their promise to pay for the by-election because they never invited any other candidates to participate:

It turns out Nigel Farage told a journalist he wanted the Official Monster Raving Loony Party to participate. He also mentioned the guy who dresses in a fox costume. Therefore, the three Loony candidates appear to have a stronger claim than anybody else. From the Clacton Gazette article:

When asked whether people will take the by-election seriously when Mr Farage’s only confirmed opponent is Count Binface, he said: “Well, I think that’s wrong – I think the Monster Raving Loonies will stand as well, and I’m told this morning that Laurence Fox the actor has announced he’s standing.

“There will be candidates.”

When I discovered that 4-5 Gray's Inn Square had already done work for the other side in this dispute, the story of Father Baker and Father Pickering communicating behind the backs of abuse victims wasn't the only thing that came to mind.

Take a moment to remember the Swiss JuristGate scandal, in particular, the greffiers who work like clerks in the court while simultaneously running businesses on the side.

In Australia, we had the notorious lawyer X, who was officially working for crime bosses while secretly working as a police informer. It was a scandal that went from the bar to the bedroom and back again. The Royal Commission into that affair made a point of asking police who slept with the lawyer (guilty as charged).

It didn't take me long to find reports about other scandals around 4-5 Gray's Inn Square. In one of the more minor cases, a lawyer was cleared in a disciplinary procedure after falling asleep during a trial. Then there was the lawyer Paul Cohen and the legendary $15 billion Sulu arbitration affair. An even darker affair involves Oliver Zachary White, banned from direct access work due to unauthorised handling of client funds.

Paying for elections, Reform UK illegal confession in High Court

2026-10-10T12:30:00+01:00

Fromt the day the Clacton-on-Sea by-election was announced on 7 July 2026, the British public were given a series of promises about Reform UK intending to pay for the election.

When looking at the comments:

It wasn't just a single, off-the-cuff comment on social media
The comments were repeated by all the key leadership figures in the party/cult
The comments were repeated throughout the whole campaign, right up to voting day
Now, even in a legal procedure, they admit offering money to the Acting Returning Officer
Through their enthusiasm, which we can see in the videos, we can see they are incredibly sincere about this offer of money.
The offer was made publicly, through every media channel willing to speak to them, knowing they would reach as many people as possible and the offer were be recorded online, like a signature on paper.
There is a big burst of publicity about this offer in the week when Nigel announced the by-election. This offer was made well before the close of nominations, which only occurred on 17 July 2026.

Related points:

Representation of the People Act 1983, s29(1) "No consideration shall be given by or to a returning officer for the making out, receipt, delivery or return of the writ for a parliamentary election or, subject to the following provisions of this section, otherwise in connection with its execution.". In other words, Nigel Farage's admission that he offered to give money to the CEO of Tendring District Council appears to be a conspiracy to violate Representation of the People Act 1983, s29(1).
Under British penal law, it is not necessary for an offender to follow through on the conspiracy for it to be a crime. The intent alone constitutes the crime of conspiracy.
When watching the entire cast of the Nigel Farage freak show all taking their turn to make promises about violating s29(1), we need to ask if their collusion in this matter and their apparent desparation to follow through on this hairbrained scheme violates the more serious crime of conspiracy.
After the election, Mr Pocock sent a Freedom of Information request to Tendring District Council asking for records of the proposation Mr Farage made to the CEO. So far, those records have never been given to Mr Pocock.
Representation of the People Act 1983, Schedule 1, 17(1) "If the statement of persons nominated shows more than one person standing nominated, a poll shall be taken in accordance with Part III of these rules.". In other words, if no other candidates nominate, there is no election. Therefore, the payment of the £500 election deposit by at least one rival candidate is an unavoidable expense for the promised election to take place. On these grounds, Reform UK has promised there would be an election, all the big parties refused to participate in an election and therefore, Reform UK actually needed to have some Nobodies or there would not have been an election at all.

The point about the criminal code on conspiracy should not be underestimated. If Mr Farage was the only person who mused about such payments then it would not be a conspiracy because conspiracy is a multi-person crime. The fact the Reform UK leadership team are all singing from the same hymn book demonstrates multiple people are telling us they are unified with the intention to make some kind of payment contrary to RPA 1983 s29(1).

We need to drill down on this. There is a lawsuit in progress already but we are prohibited from talking about it.

On 7 July 2026, Nigel Farage used his social control media account to post the following message:

https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/2074499712376303784

Nigel Farage:

I have spoken to the CEO of Tendring District Council. Reform has offered to cover the cost of the by-election.

I will be writing to Rachel Reeves later today with the same message.

Given that we asked for this by-election in the first place, it's only right that we pay for it.

Nigel never gave us a record of his discussion with the CEO of Tendring District Council. He never published the letter sent to Rachel Reeves, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time Nigel made this offer to pay.

Count Binface had the impression payments to other candidates were in scope and he replied:

Count Binface:

Nige, if you want to cover my travel costs from Sigma IX, you can pop five million quid here: ko-fi.com/countbinface

Reform UK has never disputed the requests from Count Binface and I.

On 7 July 2026, Suella Braverman, who served twice as Home Secretary, sacked both times, repeated the promise in a GB News interview:

https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/2074537503717986310

[Your web browser has failed to display the video, you can click here to download and watch it]

Compare the GB News journalism to the other interviews. Notice how GB News doesn't appear to question the promise at all, they simply allow these far right politicians to deliver their monologues and immediately post them on social control media.

I think its been made clear now from Reform that the costs of running a by-election would be borne by the party itself. I think that again reflects the integrity with which this is being done. This is not about wasting taxpayer's money. It does take money, it does cost money to run these by-elections, the local authorities, the polling stations, the tellers, there's a lot of manpower that goes into making these things run smoothly. It does cost money and Reform has said "right, this is not about wasting taxpayer's money, we'll pay for it"

On 7 July 2026, the party's deputy leader Richard Tice was on Sky News, the Cathy Newman Show, where he repeated the promise to pay for the by-election:

[Your web browser has failed to display the video, you can click here to download and watch it]

01:25 Richard Tice

and by the way, we've offered to meet the cost of it.

All of a sudden, they're whinging about the cost of it and then all of a sudden, 'we say to people oh you can't do that, no no

Host: do you think it is democratic to pay for a by-election that you're taking part in

Tice: They complain if it's costing money so we say don't worry about that, we'll cover that and then they complain again. I mean, these are like, these are like squabbling children in a playground, it's like unbelievable and the hypocrasy of these people, triggering an un-necessary by-election, the name's Burnham, Andy Burnham, Makerfield, does that ring a bell?

Host: well you criticise that and now you're saying ...

Tice: you can't have it both ways

Host: well you're having it both ways

Tice: we are, we're consistent with it. We said, if you want a by-election in Makerfield, have a by-election. We stood for it and we lost, fine but the point is here that they're basically being sussed and they don't like it. That's the reality of what's going on here and its the good people of Clacton who should have the democratic decision. These people don't seem to like democracy.

Later on 7 July 2026, at 5pm, LBC publishes a video of their interview with Laila Cunningham

https://www.lbc.co.uk/videos/2JsSevw69PT/

[Your web browser has failed to display the video, you can click here to download and watch it]

Laila Cunningham is qualified as a lawyer. Therefore, within the organisation Reform UK, we would expect her to be a role model of compliance with the law. She is the party's candidate for Mayor of London. As a lawyer and as a candidate for such a significant role, we would expect her to be more familiar with electoral law than her non-lawyer colleagues.

Laila Cunningham, being a lawyer, is also an employee of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Therefore, having experience with criminal law, we would expect her to be conscious of the finer points of the law on topics like bribery and conspiracy. One point to keep in mind is that under British criminal law, a conspiracy doesn't have to be carried out to be a crime. Simply planning a conspiracy is a crime in the UK.

Host: why is this necessary, this by-election

Laila: well because listen voters can weigh all the information available to them and make their own judgment thats he's taking the question back to the voters instead of leaving it to Westminster and that's what democratic accountability looks like

Host: and the question is what?

Laila: the question is: do you trust Nigel to be your MP and as a result do you trust Nigel to be your ... Prime Minister. He's putting his record before the electorate he's not hiding from scrutiny he's letting the voters decide (interrupted) in a democracy its the voters ... decide

Host: but they answered that question the last time he stood before the ... election and they voted him in. So why do we need another go around on that question?

Laila: well but because you see there's a pile on, there's an Establishment pile on, Nigel is clear and I believe Nigel and I think the people will believe Nigel he he has done absolutely nothing wrong but there's been a pile-on from the press, from the Establishment that somehow he has done something wrong and its ruining his reputation and frankly its up to the people of Clacton if they want to re-elect him as MP.

Host: if he's done something, if he's not done anything wrong why does he feel that a question needs re-answering people in Clacton why can he not let this process that is (Laila interrupting) undertaken at the moment by the Standards Commissioner why answer the questions that he says he's got nothing to answer for.

Laila: well I mean the parliamentary standards investigation is gonna keep going it will follow its own process. This by-election is a separate democratic decision for the people of Clacton. The voters can weigh all the information available to them and make their own judgment.

Host: when will the writ be moved to have this by-election begin?

Laila: we'd like it moved ASAP. We've put it in today. I believe its up to the Chancellor to approve it and we're hoping as soon as possible. We're ready.

Host: so L. Anderson your chief whip has already moved the writ which begins the process by which a date is set for this by-election. I ask that because of course the standards commissioner is doing its investigation anyway and there is the potential here that we have a ridiculous set of circumstances Nigel Farage himself triggers a by-election, the standards commission reports back, the result in that by-election is declared one way or the other and another by-election happens because a recall petition goes from the standards commission we do it all again ?

Laila: well I mean it depends the standards commissioner will be investigating something separate and that is a separate election and this campaign is about putting the decision back where it belongs. Right now you have the Establishment and the press who are trying to effectively reverse a democratic vote. They are trying to stop Reform in its tracks and this campaign is about...

Host: Why do you think they are trying to reverse a democratic vote?

Laila: well they're trying to sully Nigel's reputation. He has done absolutely nothing wrong but if you read all the press you'd feel he has. Umm
Host: he's
Laila: they're even saying "how dare he own five homes" as if its a crime for an MP to be successful and own homes we think that in a democracy voters are the final court of appeal. Its as simple as that.

Host: I think the question they're asking is where the money came from to buy those five homes are they?

Laila: no they're not they're asking why Nigel didn't declare sleeping at a friend's house. I mean its its ...

Host: why has the money that he received when he was politically active as the chairman of Reform but not elected, why was that not declared? That's the question need an answer

Laila: well because he wasn't an MP and because he didn't need to declare it

Host: but he was politically active at the time?

Laila: well I mean being being the chairman of a political party is like an honorary role. He was not politically active.

Host: as the chairman of a political party?

Laila: yeah he was a social I mean he was a social media influencer and he was a GB News presenter ....

Host: while also the leader the chief executive of a political party

Laila: but he was not politically active you know you can have there are loads of people that are staffed at Reform. I wouldn't call them all politically active.

Host: even though they work for a political party?

Laila: yeah because ...

Host: you're not an MP, you're not elected, you're working as a candidate, you're politically active, would you agree?

Laila: of course I am because I'm actually standing as a candidate

Host: so you would declare any money that went to you, you would declare that money in advance of potentially being elected?

Laila: if it was in my role of being mayoral candidate yes of course I would. (host: interruption) Hang on we have people working here in the back office who work for a political party but there is no way anyone would deem them to be politically active you know. They're doing accounts, its just there's a separation ...

Host: they're not knocking on doors, they're not handing out leaflets they're not giving speeches

Laila: they're not putting their name out there and asking people to vote for them ...

Host: but Nigel Farage as leader of that organisation before he was an MP was doing that. He was asking all of those things. He was saying "vote Reform"

Laila: no he was a social media influencer he was a GB News reporter ..

Host: he was not publicly agitating for people to vote for Reform whilst the chairman of that organisation?

Laila: (guilty pause) I haven't seen all his social media posts, I don't, Nigel's convinced and he's sought legal advice he has done nothing wrong.

Host: but you would agree if he had been advocating for Reform in that role he would be being politically active in the way in which you are absolutely right the person who's the accountant would not

Laila: I don't know I'm not sure I don't know that exact term politically active and it seems to be quite subjective depending on who you're talking to um but Nigel was not politically active he was a social media influencer and he was a GB News presenter

05:27: Host: how is this by-election going to be funded by Reform as the party has suggested?

Laila: (guilty pause) through our funds

Host: do you know how much it might cost?

Laila: I think, I think its somewhere around a quarter of a million

Host: and that, you are offering, Reform is offering to pay that money? Do we know if that's legal? I mean the Electoral Commission presumably would have a say on that

Laila: (speaking more like a defendant than a CPS lawyer now) I don't know if its legal. But, you know, I mean I'm sure the Electoral Commission will have on it but we are, you know, Nigel's willing to put his money where his mouth is and we'll pay for it

Host: um the issue of his security came up during his speech. We know he is, unfortunately, a victim of various forms of attack, he talked about an incident at a pub, we know the very well documented ones that've happened and that's aweful, however they happen,

Laila: aweful

Host: absolutely um irresponsible completely ludicrous shouldn't happen. Plenty of people in public life unfortunately are targetted in that way so as you . Priti Patel, for example, former Home Secretary, received numerous threats, attacks, accepted parliamentary protection and as a result um and as a result had to hand over her diary and her whereabouts in order to gain that protection. Why did Farage turn protection down? Parliamentary protection down? Or was it taken away?

Laila: I believe it was taken away.

Host: by parliament?

Laila: yes

Host: do we know why?

Laila: it was reduced by seventy percent right after Charlie Kirk was murdered

Host: do we know why it was reduced by seventy percent?

Laila: I don't know why. I'm not privy to that information.

Host: would it help to know why?

Laila: I mean it would help to know why. I mean Nigel we all know that Nigel's constantly attacked. I don't think people quite realise how aweful it is to constantly know that there are people out there that want you dead. Literally murdered. They'll post about it online. It must, its an aweful existence.

Host: do you think Nigel Farage, standing in an election in Clacton would beat um a representative of Andy Burnham's Labour Party?

Laila: one hundred percent. Of course he would, because the people of Clacton um have rejected a Labour government and they'll reject Andy Burnham's candidate. What's the difference between an Andy Burnham candidate or a Kier Starmer candidate?

Host: what would you say to Restore, to Rupert Lowe, who did some damage to Reform's vote share in the Makerfield by-election by taking votes off you. Um what would you say to him, is he gears up to put forward a plan for the by-election in Clacton

Laila: I think Rupert Lowe got about two thousand or three thousand votes. Pretty minor. Listen, we're not worried about any party, we're not worried about if Nigel's gonna win, it's just by how big is he gonna win.

On 8 July 2026, the party's deputy leader Richard Tice chipped in with complaints about the government refusing the money:

Richard Tice:

Unreal

They whinge at cost of by election
So we offer to pay
They still whinge

Proof: Britain is Broken

Mr Ethical:

Your fucked, admit it

On 8 July 2026, Zia Yusuf, one of the co-founders/owners of the new Reform UK structure has appeared on a Good Morning Britain interview. The host alleges the by-election itself is an abuse of process.

[Your web browser has failed to display the video, you can click here to download and watch it]

Host: absolute nonsense to say its the people versus the Establishment. This looks like he has called a totally expensive un-necessary by-election in order to avoid the investigation. Why not just let the investigation get underway. And if he's done nothing wrong, then he's able to say I've done nothing wrong. It make's zero sense what you're doing.

Yusuf: Oh, I disagree with that. So firstly just to address the point around cost Reform has publicly offered to pay for the full cost of the by-election.

Host: you can't buy an election. (Yusuf talking over her)

Host: You cannot buy...

Yusuf: Well you can, you can fund ... (host talking over Yusuf)

Yusuf: Well, we have look look I'm just addressing I'm just addressing that first point that you made ... which is that Reform's offered that ... publicly to cover the cost the cost of that election

Host: (talking at same time) you know for a fact that can't be accepted

Male host: Elections, Mr Yusuf, elections have to be paid by the taxpayer.

Yusuf: (talking at same time) to cover the cost of that election

Male host: We have never had a country in which individuals or political parties ... (Yusuf interrupting) ... pay for elections

Yusuf: let me be crystal clear.

Male host: (speaking at same time) that would be a ... for ...

Yusuf: What Reform's offer is is to pay an excess of tax voluntarily in order to cover that cost. We don't mean literally we're paying...

Male host: that doesn't happen in democracies like Britain's. It may happen in some parts of the world...

Yusuf: (interrupting) ...

Male host: ... where people pay for their own elections

Yusuf: we have what we have done just to address the point on cost and that's all I'm doing is that we have publicly made an offer to pay excess in order to (um) cover the cost.

Male host: which has to be turned down.

Under UK law, political parties don't actually pay tax on their donations, membership fees and fundraising events. They are also exempt from VAT registration. (HMRC VBNB60800 - Clubs and associations: political parties)

If it was about tax, why did Nigel Farage discuss it personally with the CEO of Tendring District Council? Zia Yusuf is the only member of the freak show who is talking about political parties paying a tax on by-elections.

Maybe Yusuf is talking about extending the carbon taxes to politicians who emit too much hot air.

On 8 July 2026, Nigel Farage appeared in a lengthier interview with Daniel Rees from the Clacton Gazette:

https://www.facebook.com/cf.gazette/videos/it-wont-cost-the-taxpayers-a-pennyso-who-exactly-is-covering-the-cost-of-the-cla/1034551629027152/

"It won't cost the taxpayers a penny."

So, who exactly is covering the cost of the Clacton by-election, after Nigel Farage officially quit as MP on Wednesday?

Speaking to the Clacton Gazette, the Reform UK leader has reassured residents 👇

Many people feel the local Clacton Gazette is a puppet for Farage. The reporting in the Gazette reads more like propaganda than journalism.

[Your web browser has failed to display the video, you can click here to download and watch it]

Farage: it's not expensive. It won't cost the taxpayers a penny because we volunteered as a party to cover the entire cost of the by-election.

Journalist: is that allowed?

Farage: they can't stop us. They can't stop us because you know it is Tendring District Council run the by-election. They then get reimbursed from central Government. I've been in touch. I've emailed the Chancellor to say we'll cover the cost of it. And if she refuses there are other ways we can

The Facebook discussion continues:

Katherine Lyon, quoting Kyle Green: this whole problem started with people getting to get round the laws by finding creative ways of moving money, or laundering as it’s sometimes known. Fancy thinking the solutions is more dodgy payments

The social media post refers to an article published 8 July: https://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/26262560.nigel-farage-gives-first-interview-clacton-resignation/:

The Gazette quotes Mr Farage:

When asked whether people will take the by-election seriously when Mr Farage’s only confirmed opponent is Count Binface, he said: “Well, I think that’s wrong – I think the Monster Raving Loonies will stand as well, and I’m told this morning that Laurence Fox the actor has announced he’s standing.

“There will be candidates.”

On 13 August 2026, Nigel Farage appears outside the polling station repeating the offer to pay for the by-election.

[Your web browser has failed to display the video, you can click here to download and watch it]

Farage: many more voters than we knew existed
and we met plenty of people against but they actually delighted that we've been round to see them and take part in proper democratic activity. The major criticism is the cost. We have offered to pay for the cost of this by-election in full and I hope the government accepts our offer.

In the witness statement signed by Tom Waterhouse, the rogue Reform UK party/company admits offering money directly to the CEO of Tendring District Council. In fact, the same person simultaneously holds the role of Acting Returning Officer. Therefore, this was an offer to the Acting Returning Officer. It is an example of attempting an extraordinary election fraud:

That is a signed confession:

Reform UK, Nigel Farage’s party/company, admits missing [redacted]

2026-10-01T12:00:00+01:00

In my other blog today, I explored how the other Reform UK Party Limited party/company was previously subject to a judgment and insolvency proceedings to try and extract payment.

Very few companies are ever listed in the official Gazette.

After that painful lesson, as they progress towards being in a position to run the UK Government, wouldn't you expect them to improve their procedures and run their party headquarters competently?

When Sarah Cooper-Lesadd recently resigned and defected from Reform UK, she told the BBC that Reform UK is chaotic.

In the Scotsman's report about the VMS Enterprises vs Brexit Party dispute, the party was described as "beyond chaotic". They can't seem to learn how to tie their shoelaces but they want to run the United Kingdom. If Nigel Farage does ever become Prime Minister, I hope his party remembers to pass on the messages when Argentina makes their next attempt to take the Falkland Islands.

It looks like Sarah Cooper-Lesadd is right. They admit despite having one of the most serious legal documents, a [redacted], served on their party headquarters, they have no idea where it went:

Fortunately, the process server provide video evidence so I can prove it was served correctly and the incompetence is not on my side.

In fact, the case only reached this point because of a litany of errors on the part of Reform UK themselves. Errors they should never have made if they learnt the lesson from the somebody who brought their party into insolvency proceedings in 2022.

Look at the cost. Their lawyers, Aston Bond, have invoiced over £25,000 before the first hearing. Most of that is for investigating what went wrong inside their own organisation and how the dispute was leaked by the MouseInTheCourt before the [redacted] ever arrived on the doorstep of party HQ.

Why is Nigel Farage so so afraid of a candidate who only got sixteen votes?

Creditors beware: VMS Enterprises Ltd vs Brexit Party (Reform UK Party Ltd)

2026-10-01T09:30:00+01:00

As Reform UK tries to [redacted], they have complained to the court that [redacted] other failed candidates, Reform UK defectors, independent contractors and small business owners how to [redacted].

If they block more people [redacted]

It is not my intention to publish the forms unless the conduct and behaviour of these people forces me to do so.

Judgment: VMS Enterprises Ltd vs The Brexit Party Ltd ([2021] SC GLA 49)

The Brexit Party Ltd became Reform UK Party Ltd, company number 11694875. This subsequently got merged into Reform 2025 Ltd to become a different Reform UK Party Limited company no. 16260766. An inconvenient consequence of this name change and merger is that people searching for judgments against the new company number 16260766 don't see the history of the old company name and company number.

The full judgment is available here for download as an Acrobat document:

VMS Enterprises Ltd won the case but it took them over a year to get paid after the judgment. The records about VMS Enterprises Ltd (SC476412) at Companies House show us they are no longer active. It looks like beating Brexit Party / Reform UK in court was only a phyrric victory.

Not only was there a judgment ([2021] SC GLA 49), there were also some scholarly research articles published about the dispute:

On 10 September 2021, Scottish Legal News published a detailed summary "Glasgow sheriff orders Brexit Party to pay £22k in unpaid invoices to advertising firm".

On 15 November 2021, the case appeared again in a Law Society of Scotland article about case management review.

Despite the Sheriff making a judgment against the Reform people in July 2021, they still didn't pay the bill. On 19 July 2022, The Scotsman reported "Reform UK face winding up petition over £22,000 debt owed to Scottish firm".

Quoting the article:

The political party, formerly led by Nigel Farage as the Brexit Party during the 2019 general election, faces a hearing in the High Court in London as early as September. Victor Shields, director of VMS Enterprises, was forced to take the party – since rebranded and led by Richard Tice – to court over the bill from the 2019 general election. Despite Glasgow Sheriff Court agreeing the party should pay up, it has consistently refused to answer letters or pay the sum owed to the businessman, forcing him to take further legal action in England. It is understood a winding up petition was served on the political party last week, with a hearing set for September 7 or soon thereafter. Reform UK has consistently rejected the claim, now worth more than £26,000 after interest and before court expenses are taken into account. A winding up order, if granted by the court, would see the party face liquidation proceedings to pay the outstanding amount and could include an investigation into director conduct. The initial Scottish court case arose after a dispute between the party and VMS Enterprises around payment for election billboards in London during the general election campaign. The court stated the party was liable for the bill for advertising services after some invoices were paid by Brexit Party staff and others were not questioned. Several invoices had gone unpaid amid claims a volunteer did not have the authority to charge the party for the billboards. However, the court stated the failure to question the payment of invoices incurred by candidates meant the party was liable for the full costs. Speaking to The Scotsman last year, Mr Shields attacked Reform UK’s “hypocrisy” in failing to pay. He said: “I was quite happy to keep quiet after the judgment because I assumed they would respect the Scottish courts and duly pay us. "They don't care. They feel they are above the law. "Richard Tice is positioning himself to the right of Boris [Johnson] and trying to capture the Conservative voters, Scottish voters too and here we are being forced to go to English courts, for me being forced to spend further money, to try and recover a debt that is legally due to us." The court case heard witnesses describe the organisation of the Brexit Party, then led by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, as "shambolic" by a party official as it struggled to cope with its popularity and decision to pull hundreds of candidates from the ballot paper ahead of polling day. Witnesses told the court the party’s organisational structure "visibly started to fall apart", was "very unprofessional" and "beyond chaotic" ahead of the 2019 election. Reform UK’s latest accounts state that in 2020 it received nearly £3 million in donations, with a further £17m in 2019. Reform UK has been contacted for comment by The Scotsman.

Eighteen months after the judgment, almost two years after the judicial procedure began, in December 2022, VMS Enterprises Ltd used the High Court insolvency procedure to publish an insolvency notice for Reform UK Party Limited.

As a consequence, a listing was placed in the official Gazette with their old company number 11694875 and the High Court case number CR-2022-003973.

Diagram demonstrating evolution of the Reform UK companies

Searching for information about the names and company numbers is tedious and time consuming. I created a colour-coded diagram so people can see and understand the relationship between the companies in the history of Reform UK at a glance.

Here is what you see if you search for Reform UK at Companies House. Which Reform UK is which?

Looking through the filing history of each company, you can see many minor changes, including some name changes. I put the filing history for both companies side-by-side:

Drilling down on the name changes, it is fascinating to put the two forms side-by-side like this:

Here is the full diagram I created to help people understanding the judgment and insolvency court history of Reform UK and its leaders at a glance:

Direct links to search the Gazette for old company number 11694875 and for the new company number 16260766.

People who have a legitimate claim against any company are encouraged to contact their solicitor for advice and share their contact details with other creditors to resolve the dispute more expediently. See my previous blog about how to join a creditors petition in the UK.

Reform UK last minute accounts filing

2026-10-01T00:15:00+01:00

On 25 June 2026, Reform UK, the political party, filed accounts for the 2025 calendar year with the Electoral Commission.

Reform UK is the only major political party in the UK that is also registered as a company at Companies House.

Consequently, each year, they must file a set of accounts, with an auditor's report, at Companies House. The deadline was today, 30 September 2026. Why did they file the accounts at the very last minute and not at the same time they filed with the Electoral Commission?

Click here to see the filing history and access the other accounts.

As explained in my previous blog on the subject, the reports given to Companies House are slightly different from the reports given to the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is trying to show the impact of money on democracy. The Companies House report aims to give members, investors, trading partners and employees an image of the organisation's strength or weakness.

The document uploaded to the Electoral Commission in June is a text-searchable PDF. The PDF uploaded to Companies House is not text-searchable. However, Companies House also has another copy in iXBRL, which is an XHTML file that is text-searchable in a web browser.

At a glance, we can see the numbers are not exactly the same. For example, the membership revenue in the report to the Electoral Commission appears to be a bit higher because they used to collect the money through a different company and then they subsequently merged the two companies during the 2025 reporting year.

Like the report submitted to the Electoral Commission, the report submitted to Companies House does not mention the potential impact of the new, backdated restrictions on donations from overseas electors. If those restrictions are implemented soon, they will have a very severe impact on Reform UK. It seems odd to me they can completely omit that from the statement about the company being a going concern for the next 12 months.

One of the very significant differences in the Companies House report submitted today is on the very last page. It is the declaration about how they merged the two former companies and who really has control over the company, which is acting as a political party but is really a business:

19. Related party transactions

On 19 February 2025, the company acquired the entire issued share capital of Reform 2025 Ltd for consideration of £15.

...

20. Controlling party

The company is limited by guarantee and has no share capital. The company has two members, who have equal voting rights. Neither member has individual control of the company and, accordingly, there is no ultimate controlling party.

...

Legal form of entity and country of incorporation

...

The company is limited by guarantee and has no share capital. The liability of each member is limited to £1, being the amount that each member undertakes to contribute to the assets of the company in the event of its winding up. There were two members at the year end.

Looking at the full list of documents on the Companies House web site, we can find the first document filed when the company was created. They tell us the two real members of the company are Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf.

Companies limited by guarantee in the UK are a special type of company that is normally used for non-profits and charities. In some non-profits, like sporting clubs, every member is really a member of the company and invited to the annual general meeting.

The accounts that Reform UK has just filed show us they have a two-tier membership structure, similar to the scandal of the FSFE misfits.

People who "join" Reform UK and pay £25 per year are not really members like Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf are members in the accounts.

In UK law, the real members, Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf, can choose to change it into a normal shareholder company at any time they want and then they can sell the shares or pass them to their children, as long as the articles of association permit that.

In June 2025, Zia Yusuf resigned from Reform UK and came back two days later. The accounts show us that he resigned from his position on the board but they do not tell us if he transferred his position as one of the two controlling members to somebody else.

Reform UK claims to have more members than any other political party in the UK. These accounts tell us their company only has two members, making it one of the smallest political parties at the same time as being one of the biggest.

If the members accept this two-tier structure, does that mean it really is a cult, as we were told by Rupert Lowe?

When they changed the structure, they told people they were making it more democratic. What they really did is they reduced their risk. If it fails, they only lose their guarantee, which is £1 each. If it succeeds, these two people can choose to pivot back to a shareholder company form, issue shares and sell them on the stock market.

The other thing they did through this reoganisation is obfuscating the history of disputes and judgments against the former company. It looks like at least one law suit is still progressing against the old company and it is not clear if the new company structure will be obliged to pay for it if they lose.

The UK permits directors, company secretaries and shareholders to be nominees, in other words, proxies contracted to obey the person who really pays them to perform that role. While Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf are listed publicly as the members who founded the new entity in February 2025, there is no obligation for them to publicly identify any transfers of these memberships to other people. The only thing we can deduce from the report is that there are currently two members, the same number of members they had when they created the entity but not necessarily the same two people.

High Court victory: Nigel Farage is ‘the Company’s own candidate’

2026-09-30T21:45:00+01:00

In the sentencing of the late Cardinal George Pell, it was his defence lawyer Robert Richter KC who argued the Cardinal should receive a lighter punishment because it was a "plain vanilla" case of abuse. In fact, when somebody in such a senior position of trust commits an offence of that nature, it is a lifelong case of psychological torture for the victims. That is what makes institutional abuse, such as the abuse by jurists and the abuse by the Catholic Church so much worse than other types of abuse.

The Cardinal was later acquitted on appeal. The day I dared to walk into a Carabinieri post, in Italy and explained the similarities between the way the snobby set collaborated to protect paedophiles in both the Church & Debian, the Cardinal died four hours later.

In my case against Reform UK Party Limited, I meekly asked them to pay £5,000, barely 0.1 percent of the controversial £5 million donation, based on Farage's promise to pay for the election. Instead, I received this priceless gem from Farage's own lawyers. Adam Richardson from 4-5 Gray's Inn Square has admitted Nigel Farage is "the Company's own candidate". This is one of those gaffs that may well stand the test of time, like the "plain vanilla" defense. I've never seen a confession like that in democracy before. So much for the promise the Clacton-on-Sea by-election was an opportunity to vote against the Establishment.

Notorious Gem of Tanzania (Wrekin Ruby) & Nigel Farage’s mega-donations

2026-09-27T17:00:00+01:00

Many people have seen the recent news about Reform UK party receiving two donations of £36 million each. Therefore, it is quite a shock to see the party simultaneously being subject to a [redacted debt collection].

UK law doesn't require a contract to be in writing. Nigel Farage presents himself as somebody you can have a pint with. If somebody agrees to pay for a round of drinks you don't ask them to provide a written contract. Likewise, when Nigel Farage and other leaders in his party made promises to pay election expenses, I felt that was like offering to buy a round of drinks. It was a verbal contract.

The failure to make those payments provided a justification to begin [redacted]. Does that mean Nigel Farage can simply pay me the money and exit the [redacted] procedure? Maybe not. [redacted].

We can find old reports from other Reform UK legal entities online. Here are the 2021 accounts. This is the relevant statement where the auditor contemplates whether money loaned to the party by Richard Tice could be a risk to solvency:

Material uncertainty related to going concern

We draw attention to the Balance Sheet which indicates that as at 31 December 2021, the Party had net liabilities of £849,456. As stated in the going concern accounting policy note, these liabilities consist mainly of directors loans from Richard Tice and we have received suitable reassurances from him about the intention for these to help grow the party in the medium term.

When the auditor writes their report for the next set of accounts, they will have to mention a whole range of scandals much bigger than that loan.

Remember that most volunteers and donors put in their time and money and they can not get their time and money back later. Yet Richard Tice put in his money as a loan, in other words, when other people contribute money, he gets his money back.

The existence of loans like this helps understand directors' willingness to accept donations that other parties might not touch with a ten foot pole.

Notice that Reform UK announced the mega donations just two weeks before the deadline for the accounts and auditor's report. Hence my curiosity about whether the publicity about these donations was meant to either sway the auditor or distract the public from concerns the auditor will express in the published report.

We saw the same thing with the notorious Gem of Tanzania. By coincidence, in November 2025, shortly before the end of Reform UK's first accounting year, the International Gem Society published a detailed history of the scandal. News reports claim the gem was worth little more than £100. Nonetheless, Wrekin Construction listed it on their balance sheet as an asset worth £11 million.

When I saw the news about these mega-donations, I felt déjà-vu. If it sounds too good to be true, maybe it is.

Sub-contractors and suppliers to Wrekin Construction felt they could give the company favorable credit terms because the balance sheet filed at Companies House looked extremely healthy. Some of the suppliers purchased trade credit insurance and when Wrekin Construction went bust, the insurance companies had to reimburse the suppliers who were not paid.

When people see these figures in the accounting documents and news stories about Reform UK, they may be fooled to be overoptimistic, in the short term, about Reform UK's future prospects.

The new legislation going through the UK parliament tells us these donations will be converted to loans. The party will be obliged to repay the money within 30 days.

The directors have known about this new reality since 25 March 2026 but their words and actions suggest they are being stubborn and behaving like petulant teenagers.

UK Government Enforcement [redacted]

2026-09-27T15:30:00+01:00

The UK government has a dedicated email address for a team contemplating Enforcement & [redacted] in the context of corporate insolvency.

After I filed an urgent application for Administrators to take over [redacted], a High Court judge could call a hearing any day now.

It is a perplexing situation for the Government. On face value, it appears quite un-democratic for the Government to use its powers to help liquidate a rival political party. But Rupert Lowe has told us [redacted] is not a real political party anyway. He calls it a cult.

With time running out before a hearing takes place, don't hesitate to contact the government:

 
To: enforcement.Reform+UK@insolvency.gov.uk
Subject: [redacted]

I do (not) want the UK Government to take a role in the [redacted]
proceedings against rival political party [redacted]

[redacted] is .......

[ name ]
[ address ]

Please consider contacting your MP at the same time.

Reform UK auditor: Electoral Commission accounts, Companies House accounts, a going concern or not?

2026-09-26T22:30:00+01:00

The Constitution Society published a blog in 2024 about the relatively unique legal structure of the Reform UK party. The organisation's legal structures have evolved further since then. This is how it was described in October 2024:

Unlike all other major political parties, which are classified as unincorporated associations, Reform exists as an ‘entrepreneurial political start-up’ or, put more simply, a private company. Just like all other companies, Reform has shareholders, the most influential of which is the party’s leader, Farage, who currently owns 53% of the company. For a political party this is highly unusual. Not only do Reform members currently have no control over electing their leader, but it is the company’s major shareholder that has ‘elected’ himself to the role. Naturally, this has resulted in claims that Reform’s current constitution is ‘undemocratic’ and positions Farage as ‘the party’s ultimate kingmaker’.

As Rupert Lowe put it, Farage is running a cult.

Every political party has to submit a copy of their annual accounts to the Electoral Commission each year.

Every limited company has to submit a copy of their annual accounts to Companies House each year. This is an additional filing Reform is obliged to make that other political parties don't do.

The format of the accounts submitted to the Electoral Commission are not quite the same as the format expected in the report to Companies House.

The last UK general election was on 4 July 2024. There are concerns about donations made to Reform prior to the election. In particular, it is alleged that donations made by Fiona Cottrell at that time are under suspicion.

During the accounting year ending 31 December 2025, Reform's revenues were far bigger than before. There is concern that a significant part of this extra money, although donated lawfully, has come from overseas electors. News reports make allegations about foreign donations, donations washed through other companies in liquidation and Fiona Cottrell, the mother of a convicted felon donating to another company which wrote off a loan to Reform.

On 25 March 2026, the Government announced new laws, backdated to the date of the announcement, placing severe limits on the amounts overseas electors can donate.

In April 2026, shortly after the announcement that new limits would be applied retrospectively, one of the overseas billionaires made a £4 million donation, double his previous donation.

On 19 May 2026, Harvey Spencer Griffiths was appointed as a director.

The accounts are signed by Griffiths, implying they were only completed and signed by the auditor at around the same time. Oddly, the accounts do not state the dates on which they were signed by the treasurer and the auditor respectively.

The Electoral Commission shows us the dates when each party submitted their accounts. Reform UK has submitted accounts on 25 June 2026. They did not submit any accounts to Companies House at the same time.

Was the lack of a submission to Companies House simply an oversight, or did the auditor already have concerns about any of the matters raised in public at the time?

The accounts submitted to the Electoral Commission generally reflect the fact political parties are a unique type of organisation. They are intended to help the public understand the role of money in the political process. The accounts submitted to Companies House are intended to demonstrate the solvency of the company in a more general sense, to help investors and suppliers decide if this is a company they would trade with.

The auditor's report does not mention anything about the risk of the rule changes announced on 25 March 2026. Here are the comments the auditor, CK Partnership, has made in the accounts signed in May/June for the Electoral Commission:

Independent auditor's report
of REFORM UK

...

Conclusions relating to going concern

In auditing the financial statements, we have concluded that the Registered Treasurer's use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate.

Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the company's ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue.

Our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Registered Treasurer with respect to going concern are described in the relevant sections of this report.

If the auditor, CK Partnership, was asked to sign the same statement today for the accounts due to be submitted to Companies House, would they feel comfortable doing so?

When they signed that statement at the time, was it appropriate for them not to mention the new rules intended to take effect from 25 March 2026?

On 9 July 2026, The Times reported that police were investigating the payments made directly from Fiona Cottrell to the Reform UK party in 2024.

On 25 July 2026, the BBC reported that police had expanded their search to investigate payments that Fiona Cottrell made to another company controlled by Reform deputy leader Richard Tice.

On 1 September 2026, I served a Statutory Demand (SD1) on the registered office of Reform asking them to honour Farage's promise to pay election expenses.

On 3 September 2026, Channel 4 published their report about undercover reporters discussing ways to make illegal donations with Reform staff.

On 9 September 2026, the police informed the media they would investigate the evidence from the Channel 4 undercover investigation.

On 11 and 12 September 2026, there was enormous publicity about two new donations from British billionaires who are not resident in the UK. Is it simply coincidence these donations were offered in the middle of all the investigations and shortly before the Companies House accounts are due?

This is why it is so important for us to know the exact date when each person, the treasurer and the auditor, signed each version of the accounts. We need to know if the auditor was supporting the "going concern" hypothesis before the news reports about the police or after those reports became public.

The deadline for them to submit to Companies House is 30 September 2026.

On 6 October 2026, [redacted]. It seems absurd that [redacted] are only published seven days after [redacted] when in reality, many people could see [redacted] in online court records on the same day it was filed, even before it was served.

It would be absurd for Reform to submit accounts to Companies House claiming they are a going concern and then [redacted] less than a week later. Therefore, to avoid any confusion about the matter, I wrote to the auditor directly:

Subject: [redacted] / [redacted]
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2026 17:45:08 +0200
From: Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro>
To: info@ckpartnership.com

I am contacting you as you are the auditor of [redacted].

Are you aware [redacted]

I saw the accounts submitted to the Electoral Commission.  Do you still
consider Reform UK to be a going concern given the police investigation,
the government plan to make them reimburse overseas donations and the
[redacted]?

Regards,

Daniel

Given the scandals revealed between July and September, the auditors CK Partnership may feel [redacted] has not reliably told them everything they would need to know to decide if there are risks to the going concern status.

Will Reform be able to cut and paste the auditor's report submitted to the Electoral Commission and use it for the accounts submitted to Companies House?

If the accounts eventually submitted to Companies House are not accompanied by an auditor's report from the same auditor, members may want to ask if CK Partnership had resigned and if so, did they give a reason? Reading the resignations from the FSFE identity fraud scandal has been fascinating.

Media silence deafening [redacted]

2026-09-25T21:00:00+01:00

On Thursday, 24 September, a social media channel MouseInTheCourt and journalists from Bloomberg were in a race to be first to publish the news that a [redacted debt collection process] had been served on [redacted] through the [redacted].

Twenty four hours later and the mainstream British media dare not mention it. Are they in shock or did the lawyers from [redacted] obtain a super-injunction?

On the cover of the [redacted document] the High Court officials have stamped the date for a hearing on [redacted / seven weeks later]. In practice, disputes like this are often resolved long before the hearing date. On the one hand, some companies fail very quickly and on the other hand, if the company can find cash, they usually pay the bills and [redacted].

With that much time, unscrupulous debtors can very easily move their assets out of the company before it is looked at by the Official Receiver.

To avoid that asset-stripping scenario, creditors and other interested parties can demand the appointment of an administrator.

From an ethical perspective, I feel there are [redacted]. Therefore, I asked the Artificial Intelligence to write a submission to the court demanding the immediate appointment of an administrator.

The BBC recently published a report Surge in AI-assisted complaints putting extra strain on councils and schools. Why not use the same technology against the far right?

A rising tide of complaints written with the help of AI is substantially increasing the workload of schools, local councils and other public bodies, the BBC has been told.

Chatbots can produce complex arguments, often quoting regulations or acts of Parliament, with documents running to dozens of pages long.

Here is the exact text of the question I asked the Artificial Intelligence. Notice there is serious mistake in the question: I actually served the statutory demand on 1 September and the document served on 24 September was a [redacted]. Yet Artificial Intelligence creates a response based on the actual situation, the service of the [redacted] that occurred on 24 September.

Here is a screenshot:

Click here to download a full copy of the request for an administration order, as created by Google's Artificial Intelligence

Will [redacted] accuse the Artificial Intelligence of being part of a conspiracy with the Establishment?

What about the fact that I am part of another legal case where Google is a defendant? Does the Artificial Intelligence suffer from a Conflict of Interest drafting my legal documents? We already demonstrated that Google AI is creating fake news to obfuscate scandals in Switzerland.

Here is a screenshot of the submission to the court:

Here are the Daleks liquidating Doctor Who:

I made a couple of small tweaks to the petition. They are placed in parentheses. Normally the creditor / petitioner will propose the name of an [redacted] practitioner who is ready to take over the company. In this case, as it is extremely political, I've proposed that the name of an [redacted] practitioner should be drawn out of a hat. Then die-hard [redacted] supporters will not be able to claim the administrator was part of an Establishment conspiracy all along.

Ultimately, the day will come when a director or auditor may be required to stand in front of the judge and answer a simple question: when the Government's Representation of the People Bill attains Royal Assent, will [redacted] still be a going concern, in other words, will it still be solvent?

Now the name of [redacted] is [redacted], the judge will not want to let the company off the hook without asking that question at least once.

If the judge allows the party to continue trading and then the party is wound up anyway a few months later, the judge who let them off the hook will [redacted].

If [redacted / any company/party] owes you money and if you wish to be formally notified about future developments in this case, please see the form comp-4 available for download.

With [redacted] [redacted]? [redacted] claims to be against censorship and cover-ups.

Daniel Pocock’s personal blog | Debian

High Court: secret trial collapses due to confidentiality breaches

Secret trial on Monday, 19 October 2026

Paying for elections, Reform UK illegal confession in High Court

Reform UK, Nigel Farage’s party/company, admits missing [redacted]

Creditors beware: VMS Enterprises Ltd vs Brexit Party (Reform UK Party Ltd)

Judgment: VMS Enterprises Ltd vs The Brexit Party Ltd ([2021] SC GLA 49)

Diagram demonstrating evolution of the Reform UK companies

Reform UK last minute accounts filing

19. Related party transactions

20. Controlling party

Legal form of entity and country of incorporation

High Court victory: Nigel Farage is ‘the Company’s own candidate’

Notorious Gem of Tanzania (Wrekin Ruby) & Nigel Farage’s mega-donations

Material uncertainty related to going concern

UK Government Enforcement [redacted]

Reform UK auditor: Electoral Commission accounts, Companies House accounts, a going concern or not?

Independent auditor's report of REFORM UK

Conclusions relating to going concern

Media silence deafening [redacted]

Independent auditor's report
of REFORM UK