AIBU to share this Reform exposé from C4?

True, but we tend to have different thresholds of tolerance in the UK and a wider range of media.

Top work C4 and Verbatim! Good to see a resurgence of proper journalism lately, London mumsnetters should check out London Centric for some similarly original investigative reporting. And a very dim view of excessive greed.

But - and I’m genuinely curious - forgetting whether there is or isn’t a police investigation - do you feel morally comfortable with what they did? Are you really okay with the infiltration of a British political party by big money foreign donors? Doesn’t it turn your stomach to watch these guys making a mockery of our democratic laws while they swill oysters and sip champagne? I wouldn’t be happy if it was a party I supported - whatever the police investigation concluded.

Plenty of Conservative Party members left over partygate, for example. You don’t have to stay blindly loyal to a party if their leadership’s moral values don’t align with your own.

That would indeed be an interesting scenario.
Zia Yusuf is one of the few politicians that has set up their own successful businesses and can't be accused of going into politics for the money. He is also clearly a lot smarter than Farage. So of the two Yusuf is clearly more capable.

If Yusuf took charge of Reform and it continued to place high in the polls then that would negate the argument that Reform voters are racists.
However if Yusuf took over and it collapsed then it would support the argument that Reform voters are racist.

Yes, I read that. What's your point, exactly?

The voters will never admit to buyer's remorse. Like the brexiteers

Background info.

We don't know what they did or didn't do because we haven't see a full recording. How do we know it's not AI or has been doctored? Remember the BBC and Trump's recording?

“The law requires political parties to report all permissible donations they accept with a value over £11,180 and all impermissible donations over £500.
“Information about any potential attempt to evade the controls on donations is for the police to consider."

What part of what you just posted don’t you understand?

It merely confirms what I had already said. That the Electoral Commission has been in touch with the Met Police regarding the information contained in the documentary, and that any "potential attempt to evade the controls on donations is for the police to consider".

The police have said that they are currently assessing the information that has been presented to them. Obviously, they need to do this before committing resources to an investigation.

How do we know it's not AI?

Grasping at straws now 😂

I don't know the difference between 'permissable' and 'impermissible' donations, so maybe you can explain that?

No.
The BBC faked a Trump segment on their news I believe. And that is ongoing -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5e9erpnzlo

Here you are since your google appears to be faulty.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/political-party-donations-and-loans-great-britain/who-can-you-accept-donations-and-loans

They are all as bad as each other.

Hopefully.🙏🤞

It means what it says. Impermissible donations would be the ones which parties aren't legally allowed to accept.

If a donation is made and it is subsequently found to be impermissable, then it must be returned to the donor but it must also be reported as an impermissible donation to the Electoral Commission.

Interesting, so you didn't know either ?
No need to get snippy because your ignorance of this has been revealed.
"However, once the proposed changes to the law come into force, recipients would have 30 days to return any donations received or end any loans entered into on or after 25 March 2026 which exceed the £100,000 annual cap.
No changes have yet been made to the law. Our guidance continues to reflect the law as it currently stands."
(From what you posted)

No, they are not all personally receiving £5 million to rewrite crapto policies for their investors benefit.

They really aren't but I can understand why some would be eager in the current context to push that narrative.

Calling Yusuf a politician is stretching it!

Reform would collapse without Farage. Same as UKIP has.

Permissable is if it comes from a UK business or registered voter.
Impermissible is if it comes from abroad or its anonymous so it can't be proved to be from the UK.
The first is allowed, the second isn't. (Hence the names.)
Both have to be reported and the impermissible ones have to be returned, or if genuinely anonymous, paid to the electoral commission.

They are not.

But that is literally all Reform have at the moment. They have nothing else.

Thank you for a civil answer.

I think we can confidently know the footage is not A.I generated because Channel 4 would be in very, very big trouble if it was. You’re right - the BBC did edit one of Trump’s speeches in order to splice together two things he’d said 50 seconds apart, in a way which made it sound like they were one sentence. It shouldn’t have happened and I think it was a terrible mistake on the BBC’s part, not least because of the way it’s undermined trust in journalism.

But not even Reform are claiming this footage was doctored. So, I think we can confidently assume it wasn’t. Nigel Farage knows those things were said, and he’s assuming his supporters are so blindly loyal that they’ll be okay with big money foreign donors infiltrating their party and corrupting our democracy. I personally hope he’s wrong.

The impending change is:

"The UK Government has announced that it plans to introduce a £100,000 annual cap on donations and loans from overseas voters"

This is nothing to do with what Farage and Reform are allegedly guilty of.