Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly challenged Reform UK leader Nigel Farage to apologise to former schoolmates who allege he subjected them to racial abuse during their time at Dulwich College.
Unconvincing Explanations
During Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Starmer described Farage's recent explanations about the alleged incidents as 'unconvincing to say the least'. The confrontation follows Guardian reports detailing testimony from Peter Ettedgui, an Emmy- and Bafta-winning director, who claims a 13-year-old Farage repeatedly targeted him with antisemitic remarks.
Starmer specifically questioned Farage's use of the word 'intent' in his initial response. 'He says he never engaged with racism with intent. What does that mean?' Starmer asked parliament. 'I have no doubt that if a young Jewish student was hissed at to mimic the sound of a gas chamber, they would find it upsetting.'
Shifting Denials
Farage's response to the allegations has evolved significantly over recent days. In a broadcast interview on Monday night, he initially denied any 'intent' to inflict hurt on people because of their race or religion.
By Tuesday, his position had hardened further. 'I can tell you categorically that I did not say the things that have been published in the Guardian aged 13, nearly 50 years ago,' Farage stated definitively. Speaking to GB News, he added: 'I absolutely deny the charges that are made by this one individual.'
Multiple Witnesses Come Forward
The allegations extend beyond a single account. Seven people have reportedly come forward stating they recall the targeted abuse of Ettedgui, while The Guardian has spoken to approximately twenty individuals who either witnessed or experienced racist behaviour during that period.
Ettedgui responded directly to Farage's denials, writing: 'Farage suggests that he has never "directly" abused anyone, or at least he did not do so with any intention to hurt. Well, he did directly target me and I can tell you that it did hurt.'
The Reform leader's aides have characterised the situation as 'one person's word against another', despite multiple corroborating accounts emerging about behaviour that allegedly occurred nearly five decades ago.
