Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice has accused ITV and Hardcash Productions of probable criminal activity that put the safety of Reform MPs at risk, in a video posted on X by the party. He said the broadcaster and the production company tampered with passport information and supplied fake addresses so an undercover reporter could fraudulently secure a job inside Reform headquarters.

Once inside, Tice stated, the individual sought access to Nigel Farage’s security and travel arrangements as well as the party’s financial details. The operation ran between late 2025 and early 2026. The employee was discovered after a short time and removed. In March 2026 Reform lawyers wrote to the person setting out the concerns and reminding them of confidentiality duties as a former member of staff.

Instead, Tice said, that confidentiality was breached and ITV now intends to broadcast private workplace conversations. He called the conduct outrageous, illegal and a clear breach of Ofcom rules. Reform is already spending heavily on security for its senior figures and MPs. That effort becomes worthless, he argued, if media organisations break the law, lie and dodge vetting to reach those same arrangements and then expose them.

Tice linked the episode to fresh security fears after it emerged that many Reform MPs’ names and addresses were apparently found on the phone of Joshua Kerry, who has been charged with the murder of Ann Widdicombe and terror offences against Nigel Farage. A separate recent incident at Reform HQ has added to the alarm. He also said the undercover reporter was a former Tory figure previously pictured with Kemi Badenoch and James Cleverly, presented as a defecting councillor and steered into remarks designed to damage the party.

Millions of people, Tice noted, are furious at mass immigration imposed without consent by Labour and the Conservatives, and some of that anger surfaces in unguarded talk. None of it, he insisted, matches the security risk now created by ITV’s methods. Reform will not be halted by what he called continuing illegality from a frightened establishment. He urged every Reform MP, councillor and member to refuse all contact with ITV until a full apology is issued, and promised the party’s lawyers will be in touch.

Reform UK Says ITV Broke the Law and Put MPs at Risk

Reform UK has launched a fierce attack on ITV, accusing the broadcaster and its production company of potentially breaking the law and putting the safety of the party’s MPs at risk. Deputy leader Richard Tice has threatened legal action following an undercover investigation that recorded Reform councillors and candidates making racist, sexist and violent remarks.

The dispute has created a second controversy surrounding an investigation that has already put the party under intense political pressure. While Reform UK argues that the methods used by journalists raise serious questions about privacy, security and journalistic conduct, critics say the focus must remain on the disturbing comments captured during the investigation.

At the centre of the row are allegations made by Tice about an undercover reporter who allegedly obtained employment at Reform UK headquarters using false information. ITV’s investigation, meanwhile, has documented statements made by party representatives during political campaigns in England and Wales. The allegations against the broadcaster have not, by themselves, established that ITV broke the law. <Link url={turn607765search0.url.uri} title=”Read the report on Reform UK’s accusations”/>.

Richard Tice Accuses ITV of Crossing the Line

Richard Tice, Reform UK’s deputy leader, publicly accused ITV and production company Hardcash Productions of engaging in what he described as probable criminal activity.

According to Tice, an undercover reporter allegedly manipulated passport information and supplied false addresses to obtain a job inside the party’s headquarters. He claimed that the reporter subsequently attempted to access sensitive information concerning Nigel Farage’s security arrangements, travel plans and the party’s finances.

Tice argued that the alleged conduct went beyond legitimate investigative journalism because it potentially exposed private information connected to senior political figures.

He also said the party believed the reporter had breached confidentiality obligations after leaving the organisation. Reform UK has indicated that its lawyers would pursue the matter and called on its MPs, councillors and members to refuse contact with ITV until the broadcaster apologises.

These are serious allegations, but they remain claims made by Reform UK. Whether any law was broken would depend on the available evidence, the precise methods used and the relevant legal standards. An accusation made at a press conference or on social media is not equivalent to a finding by a court or regulator.

ITV’s investigation has generated considerable public attention, but the legal dispute over how the footage was obtained is a separate issue from the content of the recordings themselves.

What Did the Undercover Investigation Reveal?

The dispute emerged amid ITV Exposure’s investigation into Reform UK candidates and councillors during local election campaigns and by-elections in 2025 and 2026.

The programme recorded elected representatives making comments about ethnic minorities, Muslims, women and other subjects. Some of the language reported was explicitly racist, while other remarks involved sexual violence or threats against people perceived as political or religious opponents.

In one example reported by ITV, Solihull councillor Alan Feeney made derogatory statements about Asian people and Muslims. The footage also showed candidate Chris Whelan discussing sexually assaulting another female Reform candidate, while Jamie Campbell discussed burying pork near a proposed mosque site.

Another councillor, Dean Miller of Bromley, was reported to have made extreme comments about Black children and King Charles III. Other recordings included inflammatory language about deporting migrants and training young men to confront people in their homes.

The allegations and recordings have prompted calls from political opponents for those involved to resign from public office.

Reform UK has said that investigations into members and councillors have commenced, with suspensions in some cases. The party has also acknowledged that individuals who do not share its stated values can sometimes pass through its vetting process.

The investigation has therefore raised questions about both the conduct of individual representatives and the effectiveness of the party’s procedures for selecting candidates.

Reform UK Says Its Security Was Put at Risk

Tice’s strongest argument is that the alleged undercover operation created a security risk for Reform UK’s leadership.

Political parties routinely handle confidential information, including staff details, travel arrangements, campaign plans and communications between senior figures. Information about security procedures can be particularly sensitive when a party leader attracts strong public reactions or faces threats.

Tice claimed that the reporter sought access to information about Farage’s movements and security arrangements. He argued that journalists should not be allowed to obtain such information through deception and then expose it publicly.

This concern deserves to be considered separately from the political embarrassment caused by the investigation. If sensitive security information was obtained or disclosed improperly, the relevant facts would need to be established and any genuine risk assessed.

However, it is also important to distinguish between an attempt to access information and proof that security arrangements were actually compromised. The public allegations do not, on their own, establish the extent of any disclosure or whether a specific individual was placed in immediate danger.

A full assessment would require evidence about what information was accessed, how it was handled and whether it was subsequently published or shared.

The same principle applies to the legal allegations. Investigative journalism can involve undercover techniques, but the legality of any particular method depends on the circumstances. The mere fact that a reporter used a false identity does not settle every question about criminal liability, privacy, confidentiality or public interest.

The Public Interest Argument

Undercover investigations are among the most controversial forms of journalism. They can expose conduct that would otherwise remain hidden, but they also raise difficult questions about deception, consent and the boundaries of legitimate reporting.

Supporters of undercover journalism argue that it can be justified when there is a substantial public interest and conventional reporting methods are unlikely to reveal the facts. Recording elected representatives in circumstances where they express extreme views may help voters assess their suitability for public office.

Critics argue that such methods can create misleading impressions, encourage people to speak in particular ways or intrude into private spaces without sufficient justification.

The key issues include whether the investigation was proportionate, whether the material was accurately represented and whether the public interest justified the methods used.

These questions are not answered simply by looking at which political party has been embarrassed. The same standards should apply to investigations involving politicians from any party.

If Reform UK believes ITV breached the law, it can present its evidence through appropriate legal channels. ITV, in turn, would have the opportunity to explain its methods and defend its reporting.

A legal process would be better placed than partisan exchanges to determine whether particular actions crossed a legal boundary.

Political Opponents Demand Answers From Farage

The investigation has also placed Nigel Farage under pressure to explain how individuals expressing extreme views were able to become Reform UK candidates and elected councillors.

Labour representatives have called for those involved to resign and argued that the party’s leadership must take responsibility for its candidate-selection procedures. Liberal Democrat politicians have also condemned the reported comments.

For Reform UK, the controversy presents two separate challenges. The party must respond to the conduct revealed by the recordings while also deciding how to pursue its allegations against ITV.

Tice has sought to shift attention towards the broadcaster’s alleged behaviour and the security implications of the undercover operation. His argument is that the methods used by journalists should be scrutinised regardless of what the recordings contain.

Political opponents, however, maintain that criticism of the investigation does not remove the need to address the statements made by the individuals recorded.

Both issues can be examined independently. If the recordings accurately capture public representatives making discriminatory or threatening comments, those remarks can be assessed on their own merits. If the broadcaster used unlawful methods, that too would require investigation.

Neither issue automatically resolves the other.

Could ITV Face Legal Consequences?

Reform UK has indicated that its lawyers may take action against ITV and Hardcash Productions. The potential legal issues could include alleged misuse of personal information, confidentiality obligations, the circumstances under which employment was obtained and any disclosure of sensitive material.

But the outcome would depend on the specific evidence and the legal claims actually brought.

For example, a breach of an employment agreement does not automatically establish a criminal offence. Similarly, a claim that a journalist used deception does not by itself prove that all resulting reporting was unlawful.

Questions about privacy, data handling, public interest and the protection of confidential information can require detailed examination of the facts.

If legal proceedings are initiated, the parties may need to provide documentary evidence, communications, employment records and information about how the investigation was conducted.

Until those issues are resolved, it would be premature to declare either that ITV definitely broke the law or that Reform UK’s allegations are without merit.

The broadcaster’s response and any findings from a court or relevant regulator would be important in determining what happened.

The Wider Battle Between Politics and the Media

The dispute illustrates the increasingly confrontational relationship between political parties and investigative journalism.

Politicians have a legitimate interest in protecting confidential information and ensuring that their security arrangements are not exposed unnecessarily. Journalists have a responsibility to investigate matters of public concern, including the conduct of elected representatives and the way political organisations select their candidates.

Those responsibilities can come into conflict, particularly when undercover reporting is involved.

A healthy democratic system requires scrutiny of both sides. Journalists should be accountable for their methods, while political organisations should be accountable for the conduct of their representatives and the accuracy of their public claims.

The danger is that a dispute becomes dominated by accusations before the evidence has been fully examined. When that happens, the public may be left with competing political narratives rather than a clear understanding of what actually occurred.

The appropriate response is to establish the facts, distinguish proven events from allegations and apply the same standards regardless of which party or broadcaster is involved.

Conclusion: Two Controversies, Two Questions of Accountability

Reform UK’s accusation that ITV broke the law and put its MPs at risk has opened a new front in the dispute over the broadcaster’s undercover investigation.

Richard Tice says the alleged use of false information to gain access to party headquarters, together with attempts to obtain sensitive security details, warrants legal scrutiny. Those claims are serious, but they have not been established as legal findings.

At the same time, the footage has raised separate questions about comments made by Reform councillors and candidates, prompting investigations and calls for resignations.

The two controversies should not be confused. Establishing whether journalistic methods were lawful is one task; assessing the conduct of the people recorded is another.

If Reform UK pursues legal action, the evidence will need to be examined through the appropriate process. ITV should be given the opportunity to respond to the allegations, and any conclusions should be based on verified facts rather than political rhetoric.

Ultimately, accountability applies to politicians and journalists alike. The public interest is best served when claims are tested carefully, security concerns are taken seriously and the conduct of elected representatives is examined transparently.