Nigel Faraj Have funded your taxpayer Security According to, slipped Improvement UK, forcing party donors to step into.
Zia Yusuf, Head of Reform, said that the parliamentary said Security The department has cut the security of the pre-UKIP leader in the last two weeks for three-fourths for “inexplicable reasons”.
Mr. Faraj provoked the line a few hours after claiming Kir Stamor By describing a reform policy as “racist”, “violence was provoked”.
Mr. Yusuf told Times Radio: “Two weeks ago, the authorities cut Nigel’s security details by 75 percent, and then we have seen the most extraordinary 48 -hour performance, and I am going to say it again, encouraging violence against the person who is the favorite of the bookies who is the next Prime Minister.”
He said that the donors had taken steps to cover.
He said: “What I am claiming is actually what is the Parliamentary Safety Department that is responsible for security in both homes that clearly what I can tell, it has decided to physically, physically, downgrade. Nigel FarajSecurity security. They are the facts of the case. ,
After David Lami claimed that Mr. Faraj claimed “flirted with Hitler Youth”, Mr. Yusuf said that the situation with his safety became “worse”.
The comments of the Deputy Prime Minister referred to the allegations that emerged in 2013 that Mr. Faraj sang Nazi songs as a teenager, which he had denied the allegations at that time.
On Sunday, as he closed his party’s annual conference in Liverpool Sir Kir Stamor Described the policy of improvement to scrap the indefinite leave to remain as “racist” and “immoral”.
Before he was elected to Westminster, Improvement The British leader asked famously: “Do I want to be an MP? Do I want to spend every Friday in Clacton for the next five years?”
This is not the first time Mr. Faraj has been in dispute with the body, It was earlier claimed that he advised him not to do in-tradition advice surgery for his components. This has denied this.
Last September, he said he was asked not to hold face-to-face meetings with voters, traditionally on the last day of the week, on his seat for security reasons.
But the security services of Parliament disputed that he was advised to interfere with his democratic duties as an MP.
At that time he also suggested that he was in danger of killing.
“Do I have an office in Clacton? Yes. Do I allow the public to flow through the door with my knife in my pocket? No, no, I am not,” he said.
A spokesperson of the House of Commons said: “The ability of members and their employees to have their parliamentary duties safely, on property and away, is fundamental to our democracy.
“Any assessment of the safety system or advice of an individual MPs is subject to a strict risk-based evaluation, with input from a series of security professionals and from a series of professional officers.
“While they are naturally placed under continuous review, we do not comment on specific details so that the safety of MPs, Parliamentary Employees or Public members is not compromised.”