They are undocumented, but not illegal. People can't be illegal.
It is not illegal for people to exist, but it's certainly possible for people to do illegal things. Such as, for example, illegal entry in to the UK under Sections 3(1)(a) and 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The "illegal" is a qualifier for the immigration.
One can quibble with any of the terms used to describe people who are present in the UK without authorization. "Unauthorized immigrant / migrant" might be the least pejorative.
"Unauthorised resident" imo is a better term. They weren't illegally in the UK at the point of entry. Most people in the UK illegally had valid visas on entry.
I suspect that the people involved in the two massive donations were fully aware of the likelihood of laws introduced in the Representation of the People bill being backdated to 25 March (or 6 July), as this had already been announced by the government.
In some ways, having to give the money back plays better for Reform than working out how to spend £72 million under the scrutiny they're currently facing.
My Reform MP was in town for once yesterday. Was he at the Battle of Britain memorial event? No, he was at a fund raising event at a nearby park instead. I wouldn't mind so much but he's always banging on about patriotism and the importance of the British flag.
I'm surprised anyone would give Reform any money, they all seem so incompetent.
I heard that two local Reform activists (one the candidate for the by-election this week) got thrown out of a local pub, with patrons and owner declaring their like unwelcome.
Note that as Reform U.K. is a Private Limited Company it does not need a Company Secretary, and that it’s accounts to December 2025 are due to be filed at the end of this month.
As Reform is a limited company will they have to pay corporation tax on the donations?
Unlikely.
There are actually two companies. The older one is a company limited by share capital, but the newer one is limited by guarantee, which is typically used by not-for-profit organisations (and which is the form used by the Conservatives and Lib Dems).
The two company names are Reform 2025 Limited and Reform UK Party Limited, but it's a bit confusing because they swapped names last year, after the new company was set up. The newer company owns the older one.
My Reform MP was in town for once yesterday. Was he at the Battle of Britain memorial event? No, he was at a fund raising event at a nearby park instead. I wouldn't mind so much but he's always banging on about patriotism and the importance of the British flag.
I'm surprised anyone would give Reform any money, they all seem so incompetent.
Competence is irrelevant. So long as they reflect the massive level of unthinking bigotry that exists in the UK, they will always have a following.
As Reform is a limited company will they have to pay corporation tax on the donations?
Unlikely.
There are actually two companies. The older one is a company limited by share capital, but the newer one is limited by guarantee, which is typically used by not-for-profit organisations (and which is the form used by the Conservatives and Lib Dems).
The two company names are Reform 2025 Limited and Reform UK Party Limited, but it's a bit confusing because they swapped names last year, after the new company was set up. The newer company owns the older one.
We are a company limited by guarantee, and we have to file a corporate tax return even as a micro business. Nothing I’ve seen would suggest we are tax exempt on donations - I think the key issue is whether you spend them, or whether you have money left over at the end of the tax year. But my understanding is hazy, I could be wrong.
Large transactions are subject to some checks owing to anti-money laundering laws, but I don’t know what the thresholds are.
A senior Labour figure locally told me he'd calculated that the £72m donations work out at around £100k per constituency.
If the funds were allocated across each constituency in that way then in our Parliamentary constituency it would be far more than any other political party had spent in its history.
The money would certainly improve Reform's procedures but whether it would attract a better quality of candidate than the chancers, rejects and opportunists that have jumped on the bandwagon so far I very much doubt.
But it's one heck of a fighting fund.
More canvassing. More videos. More social media. More money to pay legal costs.
According to Tax Policy Associates, which is “a not-for-profit company, founded to improve tax and legal policy, and the public understanding of tax”.
Political parties aren’t taxed on donations and subscriptions. But they are taxed on commercial income.
Isn’t Reform a limited company, albeit a private one? As such it ought to file accounts of some kind, although they probably have beancounters to avoid any unpleasantness.
The newer Reform company, which you linked to earlier, has yet to post its first set of accounts, but you can find filleted accounts of the older Reform company here.
Political parties, regardless of whether they are companies, will have to file accounts with the Electoral Commission and name large donors. Spending returns for elections also need to name larger donors. All political party accounts are publicly available.
The previous link I posted was for the accounts that Reform filed with Companies House.
Their most recent statement of account filed with the Electoral Commission can found here.
A slightly redacted version of the accounts themselves can be downloaded from this page. (The link is at the far right of the search results box - you might need to scroll.) There's more information in these accounts - unlike the filleted accounts at Companies House, they include Income and Expenditure (which shows the payment of a small amount of tax).
If you want to search for donations and donors, you'll need to change the search criteria. For example, I think this search lists all the named donations to Reform UK for 2025 and 2026.
However the law may change and even if it does not, one has to ask if as internally disputative an organisation as Reform, can arrange for their brains in target constituencies to act in concert.
At the moment they have one saleable policy and one figurehead.
I really doubt if the government will face up to the way that Reform, Restore Britain and the rump of the Conservative Party have conflated illegal immigrants with asylum seekers, migrants per se, those born outside the United Kingdom, people with any non-white British blood and of a certain Abrahamic faith.
Please, what are 'illegal' immigrants?
For what it’s worth, I think there are illegal immigrants, but asylum seekers, and those of the other groups I mention are not per se illegal immigrants. Most illegal immigrants are simply overstaying work, study or tourist visas. But they can’t be identified by colour or faith, which is the issue that the Fash exploits.
Knowingly entering or remaining in the UK without leave is explicitly an offence under the 1971 Immigration Act, which makes it illegal, and not just unlawful.
Knowingly entering or remaining in the UK without leave is explicitly an offence under the 1971 Immigration Act, which makes it illegal, and not just unlawful.
That makes the action illegal, not the person committing it.
Knowingly entering or remaining in the UK without leave is explicitly an offence under the 1971 Immigration Act, which makes it illegal, and not just unlawful.
OTOH Article 31 of the Refugee Convention allows people to enter a country for the purpose of seeking asylum, and arguably the various Immigration and National Borders Bills are incompatible with the UKs international obligations.
We had a by-election in our Parliamentary constituency yesterday for a District Council. Due to the differences in boundaries it isn't actually for the District Council in which most people in the Parliamentary seat live, so I know very little about the council or the area. Reform got nearly 50% of the vote and the Conservative vote collapsed. I was quite surprised and very disappointed. Of course our MP thinks it bodes well for the General Election.
Posted by me on the Farage thread: Interesting to note that, yesterday in Wales, one Reform Senedd member defected to Plaid Cymru only a few months after the elections, and the Welsh leader of Reform resigned his position after being arrested (and released on bail) on suspicion of assault and coercive behaviour.
We had a by-election in our Parliamentary constituency yesterday for a District Council. Due to the differences in boundaries it isn't actually for the District Council in which most people in the Parliamentary seat live, so I know very little about the council or the area. Reform got nearly 50% of the vote and the Conservative vote collapsed. I was quite surprised and very disappointed. Of course our MP thinks it bodes well for the General Election.
I read about a resounding win for Reform which was depressing and a warning to all the halfway decent parties to oppose them.
That's to miss the point. The act is illegal, not the person committing it.
Well, of course. Being an illegal person doesn't make any syntactic sense. An illegal immigrant is a person who immigrates illegally, not a person who is an immigrant and somehow also illegal.
Just like a benefit claimant is a person who claims benefits, and not a person who claims, and is also a benefit. A legal assistant is a person who assists with legal matters, not an assistant who is also legal.
Shortening "illegal immigrants" to "illegals" in casual use gives a somewhat unpleasant impression, but is also a completely normal pattern of abbreviation in casual English. It has a dehumanizing feel that I think is best avoided, but I don't think it implies that the people are themselves somehow illegal people.
Shortening "illegal immigrants" to "illegals" in casual use gives a somewhat unpleasant impression, but is also a completely normal pattern of abbreviation in casual English. It has a dehumanizing feel that I think is best avoided, but I don't think it implies that the people are themselves somehow illegal people.
That probably qualifies as the understatement of the year. I've never heard someone calling people "illegals" without demonising them in one or more ways. It's never neutral, never mind positive.
Worst still, is the use of “illegal immigrants” or “illegals” to cover any or every kind of person one may want it to mean at any time.
Heck, my wife and my younger son were born overseas. Getting passports can be a problem, and Mrs Sioni had problems getting a passport after her earlier one had lapsed.
You may have read that the villagers of Piddington have voted to secede from the United Kingdom.
This is a protest against a nearby former military base being converted to accommodate asylum seekers.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp needs a slap on the wrist for using the term “illegal immigrant” for asylum seeker.
Come on Andy Burnham, show some backbone.
Knowingly entering or remaining in the UK without leave is explicitly an offence under the 1971 Immigration Act, which makes it illegal, and not just unlawful.
Noting that under the Refugee Convention any one entering the UK and claiming asylum has leave to enter, and remain until their claim has been turned down (including conclusion of any appeals).
Someone ought to tell them that Passport to Pimlico wasn't real.
And someone should have warned tham that their village has just attracted the attention of the men who wear hijabs at the weekend and go around shouting at hotels.
Comments
It is not illegal for people to exist, but it's certainly possible for people to do illegal things. Such as, for example, illegal entry in to the UK under Sections 3(1)(a) and 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The "illegal" is a qualifier for the immigration.
One can quibble with any of the terms used to describe people who are present in the UK without authorization. "Unauthorized immigrant / migrant" might be the least pejorative.
In some ways, having to give the money back plays better for Reform than working out how to spend £72 million under the scrutiny they're currently facing.
I'm surprised anyone would give Reform any money, they all seem so incompetent.
If you can track the right company down it depends where it goes and what else is on the accounts. There has been a lot of chopping and changing but little filing of accounts (unless I have missed something).
I think this is the current incarnation of the beast, but there are others with similar names.
Note that as Reform U.K. is a Private Limited Company it does not need a Company Secretary, and that it’s accounts to December 2025 are due to be filed at the end of this month.
There are actually two companies. The older one is a company limited by share capital, but the newer one is limited by guarantee, which is typically used by not-for-profit organisations (and which is the form used by the Conservatives and Lib Dems).
The two company names are Reform 2025 Limited and Reform UK Party Limited, but it's a bit confusing because they swapped names last year, after the new company was set up. The newer company owns the older one.
Competence is irrelevant. So long as they reflect the massive level of unthinking bigotry that exists in the UK, they will always have a following.
We are a company limited by guarantee, and we have to file a corporate tax return even as a micro business. Nothing I’ve seen would suggest we are tax exempt on donations - I think the key issue is whether you spend them, or whether you have money left over at the end of the tax year. But my understanding is hazy, I could be wrong.
Large transactions are subject to some checks owing to anti-money laundering laws, but I don’t know what the thresholds are.
If the funds were allocated across each constituency in that way then in our Parliamentary constituency it would be far more than any other political party had spent in its history.
The money would certainly improve Reform's procedures but whether it would attract a better quality of candidate than the chancers, rejects and opportunists that have jumped on the bandwagon so far I very much doubt.
But it's one heck of a fighting fund.
More canvassing. More videos. More social media. More money to pay legal costs.
Isn’t Reform a limited company, albeit a private one? As such it ought to file accounts of some kind, although they probably have beancounters to avoid any unpleasantness.
The previous link I posted was for the accounts that Reform filed with Companies House.
Their most recent statement of account filed with the Electoral Commission can found here.
A slightly redacted version of the accounts themselves can be downloaded from this page. (The link is at the far right of the search results box - you might need to scroll.) There's more information in these accounts - unlike the filleted accounts at Companies House, they include Income and Expenditure (which shows the payment of a small amount of tax).
If you want to search for donations and donors, you'll need to change the search criteria. For example, I think this search lists all the named donations to Reform UK for 2025 and 2026.
Illegal,no; unlawful, maybe.
However we ordinary people are not the police.
Knowingly entering or remaining in the UK without leave is explicitly an offence under the 1971 Immigration Act, which makes it illegal, and not just unlawful.
That makes the action illegal, not the person committing it.
Alas, how quickly these pejorative terms become 'acceptable', or at least in common use.
OTOH Article 31 of the Refugee Convention allows people to enter a country for the purpose of seeking asylum, and arguably the various Immigration and National Borders Bills are incompatible with the UKs international obligations.
I read about a resounding win for Reform which was depressing and a warning to all the halfway decent parties to oppose them.
Well, of course. Being an illegal person doesn't make any syntactic sense. An illegal immigrant is a person who immigrates illegally, not a person who is an immigrant and somehow also illegal.
Just like a benefit claimant is a person who claims benefits, and not a person who claims, and is also a benefit. A legal assistant is a person who assists with legal matters, not an assistant who is also legal.
Shortening "illegal immigrants" to "illegals" in casual use gives a somewhat unpleasant impression, but is also a completely normal pattern of abbreviation in casual English. It has a dehumanizing feel that I think is best avoided, but I don't think it implies that the people are themselves somehow illegal people.
That probably qualifies as the understatement of the year. I've never heard someone calling people "illegals" without demonising them in one or more ways. It's never neutral, never mind positive.
Heck, my wife and my younger son were born overseas. Getting passports can be a problem, and Mrs Sioni had problems getting a passport after her earlier one had lapsed.
This is a protest against a nearby former military base being converted to accommodate asylum seekers.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp needs a slap on the wrist for using the term “illegal immigrant” for asylum seeker.
Come on Andy Burnham, show some backbone.
And someone should have warned tham that their village has just attracted the attention of the men who wear hijabs at the weekend and go around shouting at hotels.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2026/sep/16/nicola-jennings-on-the-proposal-to-house-asylum-seekers-in-oxfordshire-cartoon
You couldn't make it up...
Closer to niqab than burqa, I'd say, but hijab covers a broad requirement to behave "modestly" and has a bunch of different cultural expressions.
Either way, I don't suppose the 'patriots' would see the irony.