Reform UK has reported ITV to the police following an undercover investigation by the broadcaster. Reform’s home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf said the party would also launch a legal challenge against the multiple ITV journalists and the broadcaster’s board of directors.

The expose by ITV revealed racist remarks by members of the party. In a video posted on X, Mr Yusuf said Reform was now reporting individual journalists to the police, as it believes they have breached fraud and election law in the course of making the documentary.

He said: “We have reported multiple ITV journalists and their board of directors to the police, and will be taking legal action against all of them.

“Journalists are supposed to report the news. These ones set out to create it.”

Mr Yusuf claimed that the undercover ITV reporter who became employed as a Reform press officer had “doctored” her passport to gain the job.

He also said two undercover reporters who joined Reform members campaigning in Portsmouth had been reported to the police, as it is illegal to pay someone to canvass for a candidate.

Reform has also reported ITV’s board to the police as the organisation that paid the two reporters, he said, adding that the party would bring “civil proceedings” against them, too.

He said: “We will pursue this through the courts relentlessly. I want to be frank about why we feel so strongly: Many Reform staff members and volunteers were psychologically manipulated and damaged by ITV’s undercover reporters.”

Mr Yusuf later claimed ITV had engaged in “a form of psychological warfare”.

He added: “It was designed to demoralise, to inject paranoia into our volunteers, our activists, and our employees, and to make ordinary people afraid to take part in politics.”

It was unclear which police force, or forces, Reform made the report to.

An ITV spokesperson said: “ITV stands by its journalism. The programme Undercover: A Year In Reform was produced in compliance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, relevant laws, and its broadcast is in the public interest. All journalists were instructed to operate within this framework and did so under the supervision of the programme’s producers. Should the police get in touch we would fully cooperate.”

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK Reports ITV to Police Over Undercover Investigation

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has launched a major confrontation with ITV after reporting the broadcaster and several of its journalists to the police over an undercover investigation that exposed alleged racist, sexist and offensive remarks by people associated with the party.

The dispute has intensified scrutiny of Reform UK, raising questions about political accountability, journalistic independence and the standards expected of those seeking elected office.

The controversy erupted after ITV broadcast its investigation, Undercover: A Year in Reform, which used covert reporting to record conversations involving Reform politicians, candidates and activists. Some of the footage showed individuals making remarks about ethnic minorities, women and immigration that prompted widespread criticism.

Reform has rejected aspects of the investigation and accused ITV’s journalists of potentially breaking the law during their reporting. The party has also threatened legal action against those involved.

ITV, meanwhile, has defended its programme, stating that the investigation was conducted in accordance with relevant laws and broadcasting rules and that its publication was in the public interest.

The confrontation now places both the political party and the broadcaster under intense scrutiny, with the central questions likely to concern the evidence behind the allegations, the methods used to obtain it and whether any laws were broken.

Why Reform UK reported ITV to the police

Reform UK’s home affairs spokesperson, Zia Yusuf, announced on October 21 that the party had reported multiple ITV journalists and the broadcaster’s board of directors to the police.

Yusuf alleged that the reporters’ methods may have breached fraud and electoral laws. He also said Reform intended to pursue civil proceedings against those involved.

One of his central allegations concerned an undercover reporter who obtained employment within Reform’s communications operation. Yusuf claimed that the journalist had digitally altered her passport to bypass the party’s recruitment checks.

He also accused two other undercover reporters of participating in campaigning activities during local elections in Portsmouth.

According to Reform, those actions may have crossed the line between observing political activity and actively participating in it.

Yusuf argued that journalists should report events rather than influence them. He said the party believed the reporters’ conduct had caused significant harm to staff, members and volunteers.

These remain allegations made by Reform, rather than established findings of criminal wrongdoing. Whether any offence occurred would depend on the available evidence, the relevant legal provisions and any conclusions reached by the appropriate authorities.

ITV has rejected the suggestion that its journalists acted unlawfully.

What ITV’s investigation revealed

The programme, Undercover: A Year in Reform, examined the conduct of individuals associated with Farage’s party over an extended period.

Its footage included remarks by Reform councillors and election candidates that critics described as racist, sexist or threatening.

In one segment, an individual referred to Asian residents using dehumanising language. Other footage included derogatory comments about people of Pakistani heritage, offensive remarks about women and statements advocating extreme action against migrants.

The investigation also examined the attitudes of some local political figures towards religious minorities and immigration.

The material provoked a wider debate about the vetting procedures used by political parties and the responsibility of elected representatives to maintain appropriate standards of conduct.

Reform responded by saying that it had strengthened its candidate screening procedures and that individuals who clearly behaved inappropriately would face investigation or disciplinary action.

The party has argued that the conduct of particular members should not automatically be treated as representative of the entire organisation.

Nevertheless, the investigation raised questions about how the individuals featured were selected, how their conduct was assessed before they became candidates and whether the party’s internal processes were sufficient to identify potential problems.

Those questions are especially important for any political organisation seeking to expand its presence in local government and Parliament.

Reform’s accusations against undercover journalism

Yusuf has argued that the investigation went beyond observing the party and involved conduct that could have affected political events.

His allegations concerning the reporters’ participation in campaigning have become a particularly contentious part of the dispute.

Political reporting can involve covert methods when journalists believe that important information would otherwise remain hidden. However, undercover journalism raises difficult questions about deception, privacy, public interest and the boundaries between observing events and influencing them.

The legal position depends on the circumstances. The use of a false identity or covert recording does not, by itself, establish that a criminal offence has occurred. Equally, journalists are not automatically exempt from laws governing fraud, elections or other conduct simply because they are gathering information.

The allegations made by Reform therefore require examination on their specific facts.

If reporters actively participated in election campaigning in a way that breached electoral law, that would raise legitimate questions about the integrity of the reporting process. If the allegations are not substantiated, the party’s claims would not establish that the broadcaster acted unlawfully.

The police would need to assess the information provided and determine whether further investigation was warranted.

At the time of the announcement, it was not clear which police force or forces had received Reform’s complaint, and no finding of criminal wrongdoing by ITV had been established.

ITV stands by its reporting

ITV has strongly defended the documentary and the methods used by its journalists.

A spokesperson said the programme was produced in compliance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, relevant laws and the public-interest considerations governing the investigation.

The broadcaster also stated that its journalists operated under the supervision of the programme’s producers and that it would cooperate fully if police contacted it.

ITV’s position is that the investigation exposed conduct that the public had a legitimate interest in understanding, particularly because the individuals involved were connected to a political party seeking public office.

Investigative journalism can play an important role in examining the behaviour of political representatives and testing whether their public statements match their private conduct.

However, the publication of covertly recorded material also creates responsibilities. Editors must consider whether footage has been presented fairly, whether the context is clear and whether the public interest justifies the methods used to obtain it.

Those questions can be assessed separately from whether any criminal law has been breached.

The existence of a complaint against a broadcaster does not automatically invalidate its reporting. Similarly, the public-interest argument does not mean every investigative technique is necessarily justified.

The dispute will therefore require a distinction between the substance of the documentary and Reform’s allegations about how the material was collected.

Political consequences for Nigel Farage

The controversy creates another challenge for Farage, who has positioned Reform UK as an alternative to Britain’s established political parties.

The party has sought to build support by focusing on immigration, public services, economic concerns and dissatisfaction with the political establishment.

But expanding a political organisation also brings greater scrutiny of its candidates, internal procedures and public statements.

The ITV investigation has placed questions about candidate selection and disciplinary standards at the centre of the debate.

Farage and his colleagues must now address two separate issues: whether the conduct shown in the programme was acceptable and whether the journalists involved broke any rules while investigating it.

Reform has said that it has improved its vetting procedures and has taken action against some individuals whose behaviour was exposed.

Those steps may form part of the party’s response, but the effectiveness of its procedures will ultimately depend on whether it can identify misconduct before candidates are elected and respond consistently when problems arise.

For other political parties, the dispute also highlights the importance of clear codes of conduct and transparent disciplinary processes.

Voters have a legitimate interest in understanding how candidates behave, how parties respond to complaints and whether internal standards are applied consistently.

The wider debate over media freedom

The dispute between Reform and ITV has implications beyond the party itself.

In a democratic society, journalists must be able to investigate powerful institutions and report information that matters to the public. At the same time, reporting must operate within the law, and allegations of misconduct should be assessed using evidence rather than political rhetoric.

The challenge is to protect both principles.

If a broadcaster has broken the law, the appropriate authorities should investigate the evidence and apply the relevant legal standards. If a political party makes allegations that cannot be substantiated, those claims should not be treated as proof of wrongdoing.

The same principle applies to the material revealed by an investigation. Offensive remarks captured on camera can raise serious questions about an individual’s judgement and suitability for public office, but the context and authenticity of the footage remain relevant.

The public should be able to examine the evidence and understand what is established, what is disputed and what remains unknown.

The confrontation also demonstrates how political parties and news organisations increasingly use legal threats and public statements to challenge one another’s actions.

Such disputes can become highly politicised, making independent scrutiny and careful reporting particularly important.

Could the police investigation change the situation?

Reform’s complaint does not mean that ITV or its journalists have been found guilty of any offence.

The next steps would depend on whether the police consider the allegations sufficiently specific and supported by evidence to justify further enquiries.

Investigators would need to examine the relevant conduct, including the claims about recruitment documents and election campaigning, before determining whether any legal provisions had been breached.

A police inquiry, if opened, would not itself establish guilt. It would be a process for gathering and assessing evidence.

The party’s threatened civil proceedings would follow a separate legal route, with any claim needing to satisfy the applicable requirements before a court could determine liability.

ITV has indicated that it would cooperate with the authorities if contacted.

Until further evidence or formal findings emerge, it is important to distinguish Reform’s accusations from established facts.

What happens next for Reform and ITV?

The immediate challenge for Reform UK is to explain its allegations in a way that can be assessed against the evidence. The party must also continue answering questions about the behaviour of individuals associated with its campaigns.

For ITV, the priority will be to defend the integrity of its reporting and provide any information required by the relevant authorities.

The dispute could continue through public statements, possible legal proceedings and further scrutiny of the documentary’s methods.

It may also prompt wider discussion about how political parties vet candidates, how undercover journalists operate and what safeguards should apply when reporting on elections.

Ultimately, the case concerns two important democratic principles: political organisations must be accountable for the conduct of their representatives, and journalists must be accountable for their methods.

Neither principle should automatically override the other.

The decisive questions will be what the evidence shows, whether the relevant rules were followed and what conclusions can properly be drawn from the investigation.

For Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, the controversy represents a significant test of its approach to internal standards and public accountability. For ITV, it is a test of the legal and editorial basis of its investigative work.

The outcome will depend not on the intensity of the political confrontation, but on the facts established through proper scrutiny and any subsequent legal process.