In a move that has sent ripples through British journalism and local governance, Nottinghamshire Live and its print counterpart, The Nottingham Post, have launched a legal challenge against Nottinghamshire County Council’s Reform UK leadership. The challenge comes after council leader Mick Barton imposed a sweeping media ban in August 2025, barring the newspapers’ journalists from council communications, events, and interviews—a decision that critics have decried as a direct threat to press freedom and democratic accountability.
The origins of this dispute can be traced to an article published by Nottinghamshire Live, which highlighted internal divisions within the Reform group over Barton's proposed local government reorganisation. The article, penned by agenda editor Oliver Pridmore, included claims that Reform councillors who did not support Barton's preferred plan could face suspension. Although the claim was put to Barton and the councillors involved before publication, none publicly denied it at the time. The council responded with what many have described as an unprecedented move: a ban on all engagement with journalists from The Nottingham Post and Nottinghamshire Live, extending to the removal of the publications from council press release distribution lists and event invitations.
Nottinghamshire Live, with legal representation from CMS LLP and in-house counsel, fired back on September 25, 2025, serving a legal letter to the council. The letter argues that the ban was imposed “without legal basis due to its irrationality,” and asserts that it breaches local government regulations, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which protects freedom of expression), and the council’s own code of conduct for councillors. The council has been given until Thursday, October 2, 2025, to respond, with the threat of further legal or regulatory action—including a possible complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman—if the ban is not lifted.
According to the BBC, the ban’s scope and context were initially unclear. The council at first indicated that it would not allow any communication between its leadership and the journalists in question, and that Barton and his party’s councillors would not speak to the Post or the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) reporters. The ban also included a halt to sending press releases and event invitations to the publication. Later, Barton attempted to clarify that the ban applied only to press releases and himself personally, but the overall restrictions remained largely in place.
Senior editor Natalie Fahy of Nottinghamshire Live voiced her alarm, stating she was “very concerned” by what she called an “unprecedented ban.” The publication has refrained from further public comment while the legal process unfolds, but its legal letter is unequivocal in demanding the full withdrawal of the ban.
The legal challenge has drawn widespread condemnation and attention, both domestically and internationally. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a cross-party group of former Nottinghamshire County Council leaders, local MPs, and more than 43,000 petition signatories have all called for the ban to be reversed. The controversy has even reached the United States Congress, where Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was questioned about the incident during a hearing on freedom of speech.
Meanwhile, the council has only partially rolled back the restrictions. After a private meeting between three BBC-funded LDRS journalists and senior council officials on September 29, 2025, the ban was lifted for these reporters. They have since been reinstated to the council’s press mailing list and can now attend events and conduct interviews with Reform councillors. However, the broader ban on Nottinghamshire Live’s other journalists remains in force, severely limiting the publication’s ability to cover key local government matters on behalf of its readership, which numbers in the hundreds of thousands.
Jason Gibbins, BBC Local News Partnerships editor, welcomed the partial reinstatement of the LDRS journalists but pressed for a complete reversal, stating, “Free and fair journalism is vital to local democracy and must be upheld.”
The legal argument advanced by Nottinghamshire Live hinges on the assertion that the ban constitutes an executive decision by the council, thereby triggering obligations under the 2012 local government regulations. These require a written record of the decision, its rationale, consideration of alternatives, and any conflicts of interest—all of which, the legal team contends, were neglected. The council, for its part, has argued that the decision was made in the “capacity as politicians,” not as an official executive act, but the legal letter disputes this distinction.
David Higgerson, chief content officer for Reach (the publisher of the Nottingham Post and other local titles), has described the episode as part of an “increasingly Trumpian approach” to media relations in British politics. Critics have drawn direct comparisons to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s well-publicized barring of journalists from White House events, a tactic that was ultimately overturned by judicial order. The Guardian reported that Liberal Democrat media spokesperson Max Wilkinson accused Reform of “authoritarian tactics,” remarking, “Nigel Farage claimed that Britain was turning into North Korea. But it is his colleagues in Nottinghamshire who are acting like the North Korean government by implementing a press ban Kim Jong-un would be proud of.”
In response to the mounting criticism, Barton has defended the ban as a necessary step to prevent “misinformation” from shaping the narrative of Reform’s governance. Yet, the ban’s partial lifting for LDRS journalists has done little to quell concerns about transparency and freedom of expression in local government. As of the article’s publication, neither Barton nor the council had issued any public comment regarding the legal challenge or the future of the ban.
The ramifications of the council’s actions extend well beyond Nottinghamshire. Observers across the political spectrum have expressed alarm at what they see as a dangerous precedent for press freedom and public accountability, especially in an era when local journalism is already under significant financial and political pressure. The episode has also sparked debate about the proper boundaries between politicians and the press, with many warning that any erosion of media access to public officials risks undermining the very foundations of local democracy.
With the Thursday deadline for the council’s response looming, the standoff between Nottinghamshire Live and the Reform-led council remains unresolved. All eyes are now on Nottinghamshire County Council to see whether it will reverse course and restore full access to local journalists—or whether the dispute will escalate further, potentially setting a new legal standard for media rights in the United Kingdom.
Whatever the outcome, the events in Nottinghamshire have become a litmus test for the health of local democracy and the enduring importance of a free and independent press.
