We utterly reject false accusations about our journalism and urge the council to lift this ban immediately
Derbyshire County Council’s County Hall HQ, off Smedley Street and Bank Road, Matlock(Image: LDRS)
The Reform-led administration at Derbyshire County Council has decided to ‘end engagement’ with one of Derbyshire Live’s Local Democracy Reporters, Eddie Bisknell.
Deputy Council leader, Councillor Stephen Reed, announced in a press release that they had ‘lost confidence’ in his reporting following what they claim is a ‘prolonged period of concerns regarding reporting standards, accuracy, balance and professional conduct’.
Editor in Chief Natalie Fahy responds to the accusations.
Relationships between journalists and politicians are often bumpy, but for the second time in just over 12 months I find myself at the receiving end of another Reform ban.
Last year, the Nottingham Post was banned by Nottinghamshire County Council over an entirely accurate piece revealing a behind-the-scenes disagreement over local government reorganisation.
Now Derbyshire County Council has decided they’d like a go in the spotlight too, banning Local Democracy Reporter Eddie Bisknell. Eddie is based at Derbyshire Live but his copy is regularly used across partner publications including the BBC and Derbyshire Times.
The scheme is funded by the BBC, and media organisations bid for the right to run the contracts in their areas, covering all aspects of local democracy and producing stories for partners signed up to the scheme. Derbyshire Live directly manages two Local Democracy Reporters, taking responsibility for their work, training and line management.
This ban was announced in a press release, accompanied by an op-ed entitled ‘When scrutiny stops being trustworthy’. Both were written by Councillor Stephen Reed, who is the Reform UK deputy leader of Derbyshire County Council.
Why has our reporter been banned?
Cllr Reed decided to announce the ban on BBC Radio Derby during an interview where he took exception to one of our recent stories. This was the perfectly accurate story about 81-year-old Helene Ball’s battle with the council over its decision to gate over her back garden and block her route out.
The car park behind Mrs Ball’s home was on the market for sale as a housing development.
The council – which started this process under the previous Conservative administration – doesn’t look great coming out of this story, it has to be said. They’ve apologised to Mrs Ball for the distress, but that doesn’t change the fact they gated off an access route she’d used from her Matlock home for over 50 years.
Mrs Ball said she felt bullied, and a judgement from a tribunal of the Land Registry agreed with her.
The ruling from Judge Robert Brown said legal representation from the council was “surprisingly combative” given its “limited evidence” and “unsubstantiated assertions”.
Judge Brown found parts of the legal representation for the council “totally irrelevant”, “most unhelpful” and dubbed the litigation “pugnacious” – wanting to start an argument and doing so forcefully.
She’ll now hopefully receive the full costs of the legal proceedings back, some £50,000, and the council’s been ordered not to block her access again.
Now for the legal bit. This was a judgement published from the Land Registry tribunal. The case is no longer ongoing and there is no risk of prejudice to any proceedings, because none are ongoing.
Yet Cllr Reed has decided the council shouldn’t really comment on this because it’s a ‘live case’.
The right of reply issue
Court reporting, including written judgements such as this, doesn’t normally require a right of reply. However, because we’re responsible we went to the county council and asked for their response. We gave them just under 24 hours to do this. Cllr Reed claims he only had four hours to respond.
You can see the screenshot of this request here.
Speaking on BBC Radio Derby, Cllr Reed said: “What concerns me more about this, given there are ongoing legal proceedings, the time that the council had to respond to the initial reporter on this was less than four hours. “Most journalists, when there’s a live ongoing proceeding, don’t comment on legal proceedings until it’s finalised, or if we are commenting, they do a lot with background. “Why is it that we were only given four hours to respond here, and then it’s printed in such a way that has driven this as a really bad story without the council having a chance to contribute its side of things?” Let’s be clear. The council was given just under 24 hours to respond, and then chose not to. Cllr Reed was pressed on this during his BBC interview and said he didn’t want to comment further because of those ‘ongoing legal proceedings’ again. Of course. He continued: “But I think the issue we have here is more about the trust we have with journalists, and one journalist in particular, in how this story’s come out. “This journalist who brought this story actually has a history with the council, and multiple complaints from the council, not the administration, about the way he’s conducted his stories and the way he writes a particular narrative. This is really concerning when journalism is there… and we believe in freedom of speech and we believe in freedom of the press, and it’s there to scrutinise local government.” Cllr Reed rounded off his interview by confirming that the administration has a nickname they use for Eddie, which council leader Alan Graves recently posted about on Facebook. We have not seen this post, nor are we aware of the nature of the nickname. “It’s a moniker that is affectionately used around the administration,” he explained. Why is this ban a problem? At this point you may be thinking how these people can seriously be in charge of a large council with a multi-million pound budget, but unfortunately, they are. And they are there to decide how your money is spent, making decisions about things that affect your lives every single day. Yet now we’re going to struggle to get that information for you. We’ll still be able to attend meetings but it appears we won’t be allowed to ask vital questions of the people in charge of Derbyshire – simply because Eddie has been a bit of a thorn in the council’s side (as any good journalist should be). As for Eddie’s previous run-ins with the council, there has not been a single official complaint addressed to me directly. I know the council has been unhappy about some articles, but complaining on Facebook is not the correct way to resolve an article you believe to be inaccurate or wrong. We utterly reject this attack on our journalism, stand fully opposed to the false claims made about Eddie’s and our editorial practices and urge Cllr Reed to retract his press releases. It is a disgrace that the BBC allowed this interview to be broadcast without alerting us or offering us a chance to respond. This ban is an attack on democracy, on the freedom of the press and most importantly on the public’s right to know what goes on at County Hall.
