Robert Kenyon, Reform's candidate for Makerfield. Would you let him in your house?

The Me too was to Dickens' comment about feeling terrified.

Me too.

On practical matters. Come 19 June 2026, it is entirely possible that Kenyon could be a Member of Parliament. As such he would be expected to abide by the Code of Conduct.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/1083-1.pdf

Unfortunately, he is standing for a party whose leader has shown contempt for the Code multiple times and is currently under investigation yet again (where a suspension looks entirely possible). So it would be fair to say that we cannot expect that he will be set a good example.

While the code explicitly states it does not seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives, there are seven principles of public life. When one looks at these in the context of how Kenyon has conducted himself in the not very distant past, it would be very hard to have confidence that he would adhere to those principles.

If we look say at the principle of Objectivity:

Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

Kenyon showed extremely hostile discrimination and bias throughout his 2024 General Election campaign as shown in the Byline Times article:

bylinetimes.com/2026/05/20/reading-the-riot-act-reform-uks-makerfield-by-election-candidate-during-the-summer-of-trouble/

I think MPs and respective MPs forget that their job is to represent all their constituents not only those that support their party's views and policies. If I were a migrant or a woman needing help from my MP could I expect it from someone like Kenyon? I’m not sure that I could.

More historic social media posts have now emerged where he denigrates women’s skills and openly admits that he is a sexist.

From what we know of his work history it doesn’t strike me that he has ever worked in a mixed sex environment and yet come 19 June he could be in Westminster where 40% of MPs are women.

A new MP is very much dependent on help from colleagues from all parties in order to find their feet. It must be a very steep learning curve. If I were a female MP I would be going out of my way not to cooperate or engage with him at all not because he is a member of another party but because he is a misogynist and a racist who associates with neo-Fascists.

Galaxy

I don't like threats of violence, they concern me more than sexual unpleasantness. As I have said I don't think streeting was going to push someone under a train but I also don't think Kenyon was going to do what he suggested 🤢. To be absolutely honest this thread has confirmed absolutely my distrust of those who are shouting about it.

Do you trust anyone, Galaxy?

As I said upthread, that way of thinking makes it impossible for anyone to speak without fear of being asked what they did about XYZ, with attendant implication that if they didn't do anything/know nothing about it they are a hypocrite.

Also, there is a trend for metaphorical speech these days, some of which irritates me because it stops people from expressing nuance. All the same, I don't really believe that anyone is being accused of throwing someone under a bus, or that they think the PM really looks like a rabbit in the headlights. The same applies to pushing someone under a train - it's no different from saying 'I could have killed her' - it's almost never meant literally, and it's obvious that that is the case, just as it's obvious that you don't genuinely think that people on here are 'shouting about' Kenyon.

People are objecting to his sentiments in online posts, which is not the same as shouting about him, in the same way that saying one is willing to push someone under a train is not the same as genuinely being willing to kill her. In both cases (you and Streeting) metaphor is being used for emphasis and most readers will be well aware of that.

Galaxy

I don't like threats of violence, they concern me more than sexual unpleasantness. As I have said I don't think streeting was going to push someone under a train but I also don't think Kenyon was going to do what he suggested 🤢. To be absolutely honest this thread has confirmed absolutely my distrust of those who are shouting about it.

... "sexual unpleasantness" the sort of unpleasantness directed by men to women is, usually, from a misogynist. In fact, such men use this familiar way of sexually degrading women - especially women who have an opinion that doesn't wholeheartedly agree with theirs.

And misogyny is dangerous - misogynists are dangerous, they are the ones that bully women, assault, rape and even kill women.

Kenyon may not intend to kill - but he sure as heck encourages those who might with his comments. The manosphere is seething with men who are thinking of different ways to control women - including violence. I listened to one recently; he told us, women, "y'all only have the freedoms you enjoy, because we men allow it, we can if we want to, remove those freedoms". Another opined that women "should be careful" about commenting on male loneliness. Why? Because, as he said, when men get angry and frustrated, guess who they're going to take it out on? And his mannerisms left no doubt that he relished the idea of this kind of vengeance. I also, today, listened to another man tell his bro's that, "you don't have to accept rejection from a woman". In other words, you harass and bully her into submission.

When politicians cement their misogyny publicly, they are giving a green light to these men. They are encouraging them.

It might just be me - but I find this quite terrifying.

I don't like threats of violence, they concern me more than sexual unpleasantness. As I have said I don't think streeting was going to push someone under a train but I also don't think Kenyon was going to do what he suggested 🤢. To be absolutely honest this thread has confirmed absolutely my distrust of those who are shouting about it.

It isn't really about Streeting or Kenyon for me

Galaxy yet your post earlier today stated that Streeting’s comment was ‘worse than’ Kenyon’s.

It isn't really about Streeting or Kenyon for me. It is about a lack of trust of those who use womens rights as a political football. Only shouting for womens rights of those women they agree with, and excusing any attacks on those women they disagree with. I just can't fight alongside those people because I don't trust them.

Galaxy in your opinion, is Streeting’s post worse than Kenyon’s?

Oh there is always a reason for mens behaviour, I don't care how angry he was or what her views were/ are. In the same way I don't care why Kenyon did it or what his reasons are.

Galaxy

I don't like threats of violence, now I don't actually believe Streeting was going to push her under a train but then I don't actually believe that the reform arsehole was going to do the deeply unpleasant things he suggested.
I used to like Streeting a lot, he stood up for women rights relatively early on when it was quite tricky, I have gone off him lately but absolutely nothing to do with his old tweets. I am not sure what I feel about the whole trawling through social media thing, it makes me uneasy to be honest.

I think it’s fair to say most people don’t actually think Streeting wanted or planned to push Moir under a train or view his reactive tweet to her article as an actual threat of violence.

I still don’t understand however why you feel unable to condemn Moir’s homophobia, bigotry and distress she caused Stephen Gately’s family just because she is a woman.

I do think Kenyon wants to stop abortion for women however which really undermines feminism. I also and for the life of me understand why he thinks so lowly of raped women. That is really, vile misogyny.

I don't think Streeting's comment was misogynistic. It wasn't expressing "hatred" of women or "contempt" of women or sexualising women. FGS a man can say something unpleasant about a woman without it being "misogynistic". Streeting's comment was "unwise" and I do not condone it but it was prompted by Moir's article about Gately not Moir as a woman. He was angry, made a rash statement and has apologised. Not his finest hour but to use it to defend Kenyon is frankly laughable. Kenyon posted a tweet about performing sexual acts on Vorderman, that clearly falls into the category of "misogyny". Anyone who cares about women should understand the difference.

Galaxy

Yeah my feminism doesn't involve thinking it is ok to suggest pushing women under trains if you don't agree with their views. That's not feminism it is just looking out for women you agree with. Feminism involves fighting for the rights of women whose political views you don't agree with.

Absolutely, women’s rights are (or should be) for all women, of all ages, race, colours and political persuasion.

10 years actually, don't know where the 20 came from. Always good to be accurate.

No lemonjam I answered very clearly that I would fight for vordeman despite not agreeing with her on many things, I expect the same response from other people to men suggesting Moir should be pushed under a train.
I could fight for Gately but it wouldn't be challenging misogyny and would not be feminism. It would be something different, something I spent 20 years of my working life doing, but that's by the by.

I don't like threats of violence, now I don't actually believe Streeting was going to push her under a train but then I don't actually believe that the reform arsehole was going to do the deeply unpleasant things he suggested.
I used to like Streeting a lot, he stood up for women rights relatively early on when it was quite tricky, I have gone off him lately but absolutely nothing to do with his old tweets. I am not sure what I feel about the whole trawling through social media thing, it makes me uneasy to be honest.

So you feel you have to fight for Moir because she’s a woman but not for Stephen Gately because he’s a man Galaxy?

You feel it’s ok for Moir to be vile and homophobic towards Stephen Gately because she is a woman?

You don’t agree with Carol Vorderman politically and therefore you don’t feel the need to fight for her rights to not be subject to Kenyon’s sexually abusive comments.

In all of this in your view Streeting had/ had the worst behaviour of all three?

Yet, in your view, Streeting’s historical post (for which he apologised) was ‘worse than’ Kenyon’s online sexual abuse of Carol Vorderman (for which he has not apologised) … because reasons!

Yes it does and I don't agree with Carol Vordeman politically on many things. See how easy it is.
But no it is ok to say it about Jan Moir because reasons.

Galaxy doesn’t your feminism include fighting for the right of Carol Voderman not to be sexually abused online?

It is not whataboutery it is lack of trust in those who use womens rights as a political football.

I have many views on her but that still wouldn't make the throwing under a train comment any better. Also we were discussing misogyny, no I don't include fighting for mens rights to be part of that.

But that way of thinking means that nobody can ever speak out against anything, unless they have also spoken out about every other injustice/lie/bigoted tweet committed by anyone ever, whether they were aware of it or not.

Whataboutery doesn't move arguments forward, however tempting indulging in it may be.

Galaxy

Yeah my feminism doesn't involve thinking it is ok to suggest pushing women under trains if you don't agree with their views. That's not feminism it is just looking out for women you agree with. Feminism involves fighting for the rights of women whose political views you don't agree with.

Galaxy- do you have absolutely no views about Moir's bigotry and homophobia? Do you have no views about the distress Moir caused to Stephe Gately's grieving family? Do you have no views about her lack of apology? Do you have no views that she was just looking out for Daily Mail readers that agreed with her homophobia? Do you not support the rights of men- and only women?

After all you did ask for consistency at 17.37.

.

Yes we watched people cheering on threats to women they saw as bigots. We have seen it all before.

Yeah my feminism doesn't involve thinking it is ok to suggest pushing women under trains if you don't agree with their views. That's not feminism it is just looking out for women you agree with. Feminism involves fighting for the rights of women whose political views you don't agree with.