The murders of two MPs led to an increase in measures to protect MPs in 2024 and we have seen little evidence that the risk has reduced. So it is inexplicable that the Parliamentary Security Department has reduced MP Nigel Farage’s protection by three-quarters in the last two weeks.
Taken alongside the branding of millions concerned about illegal immigration as ‘racist’ and the PM’s offensive hate speech against Mr Farage, the move seems somewhat sinister and we need to know how that decision was made and by whom.
We have seen the wishes of ‘populist’ parties neutralised in Europe, but even the EU doesn’t seem to have stooped low enough to expose the leaders of such parties to a higher risk of physical harm.
One way to hit back – whether you had intended to vote for Mr Farage or not – would be to pay the £25 membership fee to Reform (or make a donation) so that they can compensate for the reduction in his security and maintain an adequate level of protection for all MPs.
The risk has not seemingly reduced since the murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess but if the Parliamentary Security Department has judged otherwise then let’s see how and why they concluded that and what evidence they used. They must surely be held accountable.
Roger J Arthur
West Sussex
Please send submissions to info@conservativewoman.co.uk and put ‘Letter of the day’ in the subject bar.
If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.
