Today Nottinghamshire Live is taking the unusual step of publishing the content of text messages between our reporter and the leader of Reform-led Nottinghamshire County Council, as we continue our battle against a ban on our journalists at the authority.
These messages demonstrate that far from waging a war against the party, we took the same effort we always do to be fair and balanced before publishing the piece that kicked this all off.
As a reminder, we wrote a story about the important upcoming council decision on local government reorganisation, including a claim that some councillors would be suspended if they did not back leader Mick Barton’s preference on the issue.
Reform UK at the national level have been remarkably quiet up until now on the unprecedented ban issued by their councillors against us. But in recent days, deputy leader Richard Tice has made certain comments about our journalism which cannot go without a firm rebuttal.
Tice has labelled Nottinghamshire Live an “activist” organisation which has acted in “a way of activism against Reform”. He also said that the ban was justified ‘”if a certain media organisation distorts and completely acts in an irresponsible way”.
We would not normally reveal conversations about stories with politicians behind the scenes, but feel we have been forced into this position to correct the public smears on our team of journalists.
“Nottinghamshire Live have essentially acted in a way of activism against Reform”
Mick Barton, the Reform leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, confirmed he was issuing the ban against Nottinghamshire Live, our print counterpart the Nottingham Post and the team of Local Democracy Reporters we manage on Tuesday (August 26). The ban means our reporters will be banned from interviews with Councillor Barton or any of his 40 colleagues.
Councillor Barton has also told the county council to stop sending us press releases and to stop inviting us to anything. This ban – criticised since it was issued by campaigners for press freedom, former Nottinghamshire County Council leaders, MPs and the more than 25,000 people who have signed our petition – will only be lifted in emergency scenarios like flooding.
The ban was issued simply because Councillor Barton did not like our coverage on the issue of local government reorganisation (LGR), which included a claim that some of his councillors could be suspended if they did not back his preference on the issue. To hear the comments from Reform at the national level now, you would be expecting much more incendiary coverage than this.
Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform and incidentally someone we have a good working relationship with on our Lincolnshire Live title as the Boston and Skegness MP, has labelled Nottinghamshire Live “activist”. Mr Tice told the Daily Mirror: “Nottinghamshire Live have essentially acted in a way of activism against Reform.
“The joy of a democratic society is that we take lots of scrutiny. We do more, probably, media interviews and questions than anybody else.
“But when someone moves from being a media organisation to an activist organisation – in our judgment, they would deny that – then conversations need to be had, and that’s the reality.
“We welcome media scrutiny, but equally, media organisations should not become activists. There’s a difference between legitimate scrutiny and accountability and criticism – and activism.”
The deputy leader also told Sky News, referencing a conversation he had with Mick Barton: “They’re very happy to speak to people from the media but if a certain media organisation distorts and completely acts in an irresponsible way, then equally they’re entitled to say we’re going to to other parts of the media, not yourselves.”
It is hard to comprehend how detached from reality the above comments are. The only overt criticism we have penned against Reform UK has been in response to the repeated occasions in which party figures have attacked Nottinghamshire Live.
Outside of that, all we have delivered is the very same “legitimate scrutiny and accountability” that Mr Tice mentions. To prove it, here is exactly what went into producing the story that we are told kicked off this ban.
Mick Barton’s last words before his unprecedented ban? “No problem”
Councillor Andrew Meads, an independent Gedling borough councillor, got in touch with me to say he had attended a recent public surgery held by Reform’s two Arnold North county councillors – John Semens and Wendy Lukàcs. Councillor Meads said that he was speaking to the councillors during a very quiet moment of the surgery when very few other people were in the room.
Councillor Meads said that the two councillors both said they could face suspension from the county council’s Reform group if they did not back Councillor Barton’s LGR preference at a crunch meeting on Tuesday (September 2). As would be the case in any instance in which we heard a claim such as this, we immediately went to all the parties concerned.
Councillors Semens and Lukàcs did not answer their phones and did not reply to initial messages they both received and saw, asking for a general conversation on LGR. Meanwhile, we contacted Councillor Barton himself.
The conversation we had with Councillor Barton was largely off-the-record and he did not wish to publicly respond to the claim by Councillor Meads – even to publicly deny it. Councillor Barton did say though that his broader comments on where he and his group were at on LGR could be used.
To be as fair as possible, I then sent Councillor Barton a text confirming the quote from him I would use in the piece. The county council leader responded by saying he did not want that quote using, so we didn’t use one bit of it.
The leader said: “Hi. No I’d like this to go out please. I’d like to say, I’m definitely with 1b where the evidence is and I’m advising my fellow group members to do the same. I’ve been working on this since May, we have only had a few months to get up to speed. We still have some more meetings before the full council on the 2nd September. Regards Mick.”
I sent back: “Yes that’s all absolutely fine, thanks very much for confirming Mick”. He sent back: “No problem”.
Nobody has actually denied our original report
Meanwhile, I again messaged John Semens and Wendy Lukàcs and this time including the direct claim we had heard from Andy Meads and what Councillor Barton had said, and not said, in response. The two responded with identical messages which said: “I’m sure Councillor Barton is correct”.
Their messages did nothing to deny what they had said to Councillor Meads and Councillor Barton did not want to publicly deny the claim. Councillor Meads, meanwhile, was adamant about what he heard and was more than happy to have his name publicly put against it.
Given the credence of the source for the claim, coupled with the three parties concerned doing absolutely nothing to deny it, we included it in our resulting piece on Thursday (August 21). We immediately got wind of Councillor Barton’s unhappiness, though he never approached us directly with any concerns.
Instead, it was left to the council’s press office to deliver news of the ban on Tuesday (August 26). Since the ban was issued, we have still had not one single denial of the claim about what John Semens and Wendy Lukàcs said and Councillor Meads remains adamant on what he heard.
That is the full, comprehensive detail of the story that had led us to this unprecedented situation. Activism, Mr Tice, it is not.
We have run pieces of a similar vein on the Labour group running Nottingham City Council and the Tories who previously ran the county council. Have they ever banned us because of it? No.
It is legitimate and important public interest journalism on how taxpayer-funded councillors are coming to the decisions they make on behalf of the people who elected them. The electorate cannot simply rely on Lee Anderson’s Facebook page to get this information.
When our newspaper was first published as the Nottingham Evening Post on May 1, 1878, an introductory editorial read: “The Evening Post offers itself as the exclusive organ of no religious or political party.” It is a statement which remains as true today as it was nearly 150 years ago.
