Reform donor Ben Delo lent £350,000 to writer involved in case where judge found 'whiff of threat and antisemitism'

Reform UK's new mega-donor Ben Delo provided a £350,000 loan to a conservative writer taking part in a legal dispute that saw a judge criticise social media posts by academic Nina Power and a companion as having 'the whiff of threat and antisemitism'. The case includes a defamation claim by Power and a counter-claim accusing the pair of harassment.

A major donor to Reform UK, Ben Delo, has provided a £350,000 loan to a conservative writer who was involved in a legal dispute that drew criticism from a judge over online conduct.

The dispute centres on academic Nina Power and the writer Daniel DC Miller, who together brought a defamation action against performance artist Luke Turner, alleging he had wrongly described them as antisemitic. Turner subsequently filed a counter-claim accusing the pair of harassing him.

In handing down his findings, the judge said social media posts by Power and her friend contained what he described as the "whiff of threat and antisemitism", and concluded that the pair had engaged in online bullying and other regrettable behaviour. The judge's remarks formed part of the reasoning in the ruling on aspects of the competing claims.

Delo, who has recently emerged as a significant financial backer of Reform UK, made the loan to a conservative writer involved in the litigation, according to reports. The transfer has drawn attention because it links a prominent political donor to a high-profile dispute over allegations of antisemitism and online harassment.

The case highlights the intersection of online discourse, defamation law and the role of private funding in politically sensitive legal fights. Both the original defamation claim and the counter-claim of harassment were considered by the court as it assessed the conduct of the parties involved.

Representatives for the individuals and organisations named in the proceedings did not immediately provide comment to the press. The litigation and the judge's findings are likely to continue to attract scrutiny given the broader public debate about online behaviour and the influence of wealthy donors in politics.