Two high-profile former British Members of Parliament found themselves at the center of controversy this week, as separate investigations into their conduct reached pivotal moments. On September 16, 2025, news broke that police had dropped an inquiry into ex-Conservative MP Mark Menzies, who faced accusations of misusing donors' money for personal expenses, including payments to sex workers. Meanwhile, a parliamentary standards investigation was launched into James McMurdock, a former Reform MP, over allegations of facilitating racial abuse against a Sky News journalist on social media.
Both cases have ignited debates about accountability, standards in public life, and the boundaries of acceptable behavior for those in positions of power. The stories, although distinct, share a common thread: the struggle to uphold public trust in the face of serious allegations.
According to BBC News, the investigation into Mark Menzies began in 2024 after accusations surfaced that the then-MP for Fylde had used campaign funds for personal expenses. The allegations came to light after a string of bizarre events in December 2023. Menzies reportedly called a long-time Conservative party volunteer, Katie Fieldhouse, at 3am, claiming he was locked in a London flat by "bad people" and urgently needed thousands of pounds to secure his release. The urgency and odd timing raised eyebrows among party officials and the public alike.
Over the course of that morning, Menzies borrowed a total of approximately £8,500 from his office manager and another aide. The majority—about £6,500—was later repaid from a bank account set up for political donations from local supporters. Questions also emerged about an additional £14,000 in donor funds, which Menzies described as being used for medical expenses. However, The Times reported that at least some of the money was used to pay sex workers, an accusation that cast a long shadow over Menzies’ political future.
The police investigation, prompted in part by Labour’s demand for a probe into potential fraud and misconduct, lasted several months and included interviews with multiple individuals familiar with Menzies’ financial dealings. Despite the gravity of the accusations, Lancashire police concluded that a "full and thorough investigation" had found "no evidence that any criminal offences have taken place." Two individuals interviewed as part of the investigation told the BBC that the decision to drop the case was influenced by Menzies’ agreement to repay the borrowed money. In June 2025, Menzies repaid £1,000 into the donors’ bank account, though it remains unclear exactly how much he ultimately agreed to return.
Katie Fieldhouse, the volunteer who received the late-night call, told BBC News, "The police rang me. They told me there's insufficient evidence to prosecute and he's agreed to pay it back." Another source involved with the business account confirmed their understanding that repayment was a factor in closing the investigation. Menzies, who did not respond to requests for comment, has not found employment since standing down as an MP but reportedly received a hardship loan from the Conservative party, understood to be a five-figure sum.
Menzies’ political career was not without prior controversy. He resigned as a ministerial aide in 2014 after being accused of paying for sex from a male sex worker, allegations he denied at the time. His career ultimately ended in April 2024 after reports of misusing campaign funds and fresh allegations involving sex workers surfaced, leading to his resignation ahead of the last general election.
The expenses watchdog, Ipsa, also investigated a £700 bonus payment to an aide, which was claimed to be for work on a wind farm application but was alleged to have been reimbursement for money lent to pay sex workers. Ipsa’s compliance officer found the case "not proven," noting evidence of wrongdoing but also discrepancies in the aide’s statements and the amounts involved.
While the Menzies case was winding down, a new controversy erupted involving James McMurdock, a former Reform MP. On the same day, it was revealed that the parliamentary standards commissioner had launched an investigation into McMurdock over allegations of racial abuse directed at Sky News political correspondent Mhari Aurora. The complaint, brought forward by Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, centered on McMurdock’s alleged use of social media to facilitate a form of racial abuse known as an "N-Tower."
According to Sky News, the "N-Tower" involves posting the single letter "N" under a social media post, with subsequent users adding letters to spell out a racial slur vertically. Obese-Jecty described this as "a means of using a racial slur against an individual on an online platform whilst circumventing moderation that would remove racially abusive content." He further criticized McMurdock for deleting the initial post without challenging the subsequent spelling, calling it a "failure to challenge poor behaviour" and an "absence of moral courage." Obese-Jecty stated in his complaint, "Having repeatedly experienced this specific type of online racial abuse myself I am horrified that a fellow member of parliament would apparently see this as a legitimate means of challenging a Westminster lobby journalist in a public forum. I sincerely hope that there is a coherent and believable explanation for this horrendous action."
The standards commissioner is now examining whether McMurdock breached rule 11 of the House of Commons Code of Conduct, which prohibits actions that could damage the reputation and integrity of Parliament or its members. McMurdock, who suspended himself as an MP last year amid unrelated allegations regarding pandemic loans, has denied making the post. He shared a screenshot from X’s AI assistant, Grok, which claimed he never posted the letter "N"—though Grok, a large language model, is known to be inaccurate. McMurdock dismissed the complaint as "beyond ridiculous." He has not made further public comment since the investigation was announced.
Both cases have fueled broader conversations about ethics in public life. For some, the Menzies case highlights the limits of legal accountability when financial impropriety is resolved through repayment rather than prosecution. Others see the McMurdock investigation as a test of Parliament’s willingness to tackle online hate and set clear standards for MPs’ digital conduct. The outcomes of these inquiries—one now closed, the other just beginning—will likely shape public expectations for transparency and responsibility among Britain’s elected officials.
As these stories continue to unfold, the public is left to weigh the adequacy of the systems designed to hold their representatives to account. Whether repayment and internal investigations are sufficient remedies or merely stopgaps remains a pressing question for the future of British political life.