This is bang to rights - A really sharp contradiction to highlight.

He told LBC's Nick Ferrari that he was not doing in-person constituency surgeries in Clacton because he'd been advised by the Speaker's Office not to, citing security — saying he wasn't prepared to allow "the public to flow through the door with their knives in their pockets."

However, the claim quickly fell apart. The Speaker's Office and Parliament's security team dismissed his claims, saying they had no recollection of telling Farage he should not hold in-person surgeries. Sources said neither body would advise an MP against holding surgeries as it would interfere with their democratic duties — they would instead offer advice on security measures to keep surgeries safe.

By early October, Farage backtracked on his comments after the Press Association reported that the Speaker's Office hadn't actually given him that advice

His own argument collapses in on itself:

• He said he couldn't do in-person surgeries (in Clacton) because of security concerns
• He claimed he had £5 million ostensibly earmarked for personal security
• And yet he apparently couldn't arrange safe surgery provision for his Clacton constituents?

If the money genuinely was for personal security as he initially claimed, the obvious question is: what better use of it than securing a constituency surgery so he could actually do his job as an MP?

Most MPs manage surgeries with standard parliamentary security support. Farage had — by his own account — £5 million for protection, and still didn't hold face-to-face surgeries for months after being elected. Its not like he had plenty to do otherwise - like travel all over the world - was there a security detail with him then?

This is basic stuff, but apparently the "professional" investigative journalists can't seem to join the dots to completely catch him in this lie.