Rupert Lowe and Those Allegations
Adding a little cold hard reality to the bluster and venom
Reform UK appointed an independent King's Counsel (KC), Jacqueline Perry, to investigate allegations of serious bullying and harassment against Rupert Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, and his team. The allegations included claims of workplace bullying, targeting of female staff, derogatory and discriminatory remarks about women, and verbal threats against party chairman Zia Yusuf. On March 25, 2025, Reform UK released a statement citing Jacqueline Perry's report, which concluded there was "credible evidence of unlawful harassment of two women by both Mr. Lowe and male members of his team." Perry specifically noted that the complaints from the two women involved "victimisation, constant criticisms, and discriminatory behaviour" that amounted to harassment. She stated there was "veracity in the complaints" and that Lowe had failed to address the "toxic conduct" of male colleagues in his office. The report also highlighted that one woman received threats of legal action from Lowe if she cooperated with the investigation, and both women provided sworn statements under penalty of perjury, which Lowe did not.
Gemma White's review, which criticised the process but did not question witnesses nor did it obtain sworn statements, was specifically commissioned by Rupert Lowe to undermine the original investigation. It could well be seen as an unsubstantiated opinion due to its focus on procedural critique without re-examining evidence or interviewing witnesses. Its funding by Lowe could raise questions about bias, as it was initiated specifically to challenge Jacqueline Perry’s findings, which were based on sworn statements and found credible evidence of harassment. The lack of new evidence or witness interviews in White’s review, combined with Lowe’s direct commissioning, could indeed make its impartiality questionable.
Additionally, there is no indication that Gemma White directly offered Jacqueline Perry an opportunity to comment on or challenge her review’s findings. White’s report appears to have been a unilateral critique commissioned by Lowe, focused on analysing Perry’s investigation without engaging Perry herself. There is no mention of White contacting Perry, sharing a draft of the review, or inviting her to respond to the criticisms regarding the procedural issues. This one-sided approach is a critical failing of White’s opinions, especially given her emphasis on unsubstantiated procedural fairness in Perry’s investigation. Without Perry’s input, White’s conclusions about the investigation’s flaws rely solely on her interpretation of the process and documents provided, which severely weakens the critique.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) chose not to prosecute Lowe for the alleged threats made against Yusuf, the then Reform UK chairman, though it should be recognised that the Police took quite a different view and thought the actions of Lowe were severe enough to warrant prosecution.
It should be noted that the CPS have quite a different set of criteria in deciding prosecutions and they aren’t all about the veracity of the complaint. Pressure to limit prosecutions due to backlogs plays a big part and I suspect they often throw the police under a bus (and the public) by only pursuing prosecutions they feel have a 100% chance of success.
It's also worth noting that Lowe’s actions and behaviour, as you would expect have attracted criticism before, as this article about his time at Southampton Football Club will testify.
The ugly inside: Rupert Lowe and the Reform civil war – SKWAWKBOX
1. Rupert Lowe, then, feigns total innocence, when there were credible complaints against him supported by sworn statements and a police investigation that recommended prosecution.
2. Lowe was not expelled from Reform UK, he was suspended, and the whip was withdrawn. That’s a perfectly standard response to allegations of bullying and would be enacted by any serious party. However, Lowe seems to have chosen to leave the party, and I suspect Reform UK are perfectly happy with that outcome.
3. Since then, Lowe has taken every opportunity to denigrate his accusers and has embarked upon a personal vendetta against Reform UK when the actions taken against him were based on credible evidence. His passionate and vehement defence of his actions shouldn’t be taken as evidence to strengthen his position as extremely egotistical and arrogant people are often wholly committed to falsehoods but can be very influential to the more gullible amongst us.
4. Most oddly, Lowe is wholly onside with Reform UK’s agenda and knows Nigel Farage very well, otherwise why would he have been a Brexit Party MEP and why is he now an elected MP and elected under the Reform UK banner? We now have a new, right of centre, party for the first time since 1922 that can win a general election. That was the year the Labour Party took a significant foothold in the commons and dealt the death blow to the Liberal Party (now the Liberal Democrats). A blow from which they have never recovered. Reform UK are about to send the Conservative Party to the same grave. Why then, would he do everything he can to maintain the status quo?
If he had any honour, he would have resigned his seat and triggered a by-election as Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless did when they joined UKIP. There are two reasons I suspect. Firstly, he’s not confident in winning, and secondly because of that, he’s simply not got the guts.
What is clear about this unedifying vendetta is that it is not as Lowe suggests. The I’m 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong rarely holds to be true.