I think it's quite likely that most people in the room only saw a protestor being removed and not the violence that went along with it, so perhaps most people were indeed cheering at her simple removal. But the people surrounding the incident seemed very keen at the goings on, as she got her hair pulled and her head yanked off her neck and she got smacked with a metal crutches. Those people got their digs in as she was being appropriately restrained and lawfully removed by security because they're thick cowards who felt safe and enabled to it.
What is striking from this and a number of other comments above is how much those who, I assume would rightly be critical of stereotyping people and groups, are happy to do this when it cokes to those they disagree with.
How do comments like this fit with Suella Braverman or Sarah Pochin? How do they fit with the multiple women who chair Reform UK branches, including my own? How do they fit with the conference having a similar male/female mix in attendees to the conferences of other major parties? How do they fit with the multiple Reform UK female councillors.
The reality is that comments like this are sexist stereotyping, not reality.
A good start to this sort of analysis is to ask the question:
Are there any political parties in the Western world which are definitely, absolutely sexist and do stand for the reversal of women's rights? And, given those parties invariably have plenty of women in them, does this provide a defence to the allegations that they are sexist?
Reform is more popular among men compared to women. This is also reflected in the fact that only about 20% of their elected representatives are women, which is the lowest percentage of any large UK political party. And Reform is much more popular amongst men than it is women - and particularly young women, who strongly disfavour them. That's probably largely because Reform's stated policy is to revoke the Equality Act and replace it with something cooked up by its overwhelmingly male hierarchy, and also because women don't necessarily like the abrasive style and authoritarianism which defines the party.
Nonetheless, I do think it is unfair that you are being asked to account for the actions of others in the party. I voted Green and said so at the time of the last elections. Nobody asked me about any of the problematic actions of its leader or some of its radical members whose actions can amount to antisemitism. There would be a multitude of difficult questions anyone might be asked about party members regardless of affiliation. Many of us use voting or political affiliation as vehicles to enact some sort of change; I lent the Greens my vote and don't regret it although I'm unlikely to lend it to them again.
I live in rural Northamptonshire. West Northamptonshire Council is run by Reform who have an absolute majority. They won more than half the seats. But I cannot live my life going around and talking to parents at nursery and going to the local beer festival or the bale push or the dads' support group or the supermarket etc etc...and think half the people I bump into are "bad". I don't recognise the criticism that Reform voters are all unpleasant or stupid; it stands to reason that most of them are decent and hard working and want certain political objectives met. And some of those objectives I personally support, even if I disagree with the method by which they are achieved.
A lot of Reform voters are just like about half the population - floating and transactional voters who are with Reform because they want a small number of political objectives met, like a reduction in asylum claims or a reduction in welfare dependency. The question always has to be how those people can be won back by other parties.
