Reform UK‑run Derbyshire county council has withdrawn all cooperation with Eddie Bisknell, the BBC‑funded local democracy journalist who writes for Derbyshire Live, after questioning the authority’s claim that pothole numbers fell from 12,000 in April to fewer than 700. The move follows a separate story about a garden‑gate fence panel that was cemented across a gap between an 81‑year‑old woman’s garden and a council car park. Press freedom groups have warned that the council’s refusal to engage sets a dangerous precedent for open government.
The pothole statistics dispute
Council leaders issued a press release celebrating a dramatic drop in potholes, describing the figure as the lowest recorded in over a year. Eddie Bisknell’s article for Derbyshire Live raised doubts about the data used in that release, prompting the council to review its relationship with the reporter. Stephen Reed, the council’s deputy leader, confirmed that Bisknell’s inquiries would now be ignored, saying the journalist would have to work “twice as hard” to do his job. Reed stressed that the decision was not an outright ban, insisting Bisknell could still write about the council and attend public meetings, but that the authority would simply not respond to his requests for information.
The fence‑panel controversy
Before the pothole row escalated, Bisknell published a piece concerning a fence panel that had been cemented across a wall gap separating an elderly resident’s garden from a council car park. The work had been initiated by the previous Conservative‑led administration. Reed clarified that the decision to stop engaging with Bisknell was made before this story appeared, though the council later cited the fence article as part of a “prolonged period of concerns” that contributed to the breakdown in communication.
Industry backlash
Media organisations reacted swiftly. Natalie Fahy, editor‑in‑chief for London and the east of England for Reach, which owns Derbyshire Live, called the council’s stance “the worst kind of double speak” and warned that claiming non‑engagement is not a ban undermines a free press. Dawn Alford, chief executive of the Society of Editors, urged the authority to reverse the decision, stating that refusing to engage with a journalist because of their reporting “sets a dangerous precedent” and deprives the public of answers about how their money is spent. Laura Davison, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, told the council to “get off its high horse and respect the democratic norms voters and local communities they expect”.
Why it Matters
When a public body chooses to silence a reporter whose scrutiny it finds uncomfortable, it erodes the transparency that underpins local democracy. Residents lose a vital channel for questioning decisions that affect their streets, services and council tax, while the precedent encourages other authorities to adopt similar tactics. Protecting the right of journalists to ask questions — and to receive answers — is not a favour to the press; it is a fundamental duty of any council that claims to serve the public interest.
