A Reform UK councillor has been reprimanded by a council watchdog after suggesting that mental health struggles are “the 21st-century version of the bad back”.
Oliver Freeston, a Reform councillor for North East Lincolnshire, received a warning email from a compliance officer following comments he made during a meeting of the health and adult social care scrutiny panel on January 29.
During the meeting, Mr Freeston claimed that conditions such as anxiety and depression were sometimes used to claim out-of-work sickness benefits because they were “hard to disprove”.
He argued that it had become too easy for young people to self-identify as depressed and suggested that doctors were too quick to prescribe antidepressants rather than focus on helping patients develop coping mechanisms for the day-to-day challenges of life.
Following the meeting, Mr Freeston – a 25-year-old former NHS worker – received an email from a member of the council team warning him about his comments.
The email read:
A bit of noise, from quarters both inside and outside the council, is reaching me around certain comments made by you at the health and adult social care scrutiny panel on Wednesday evening.
Naturally accepting that you’re entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else, you perhaps need to temper your comments somewhat?
No formal ‘standards’ issue as yet, but in a bid to avoid that becoming an issue, perhaps moderate your language? Particularly when presiding as chair. There are certain expectations of behaviour and approach reasonably expected of an elected member. You know that.
Under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998, political speech, including robust or controversial opinions on public policy, receives a high level of protection. While Article 10 allows for certain restrictions, such as those necessary to maintain public order or prevent harm, the courts have repeatedly affirmed that political speech is afforded enhanced protection, particularly when expressed by elected representatives in the course of public debate.
The compliance officer’s warning also raises legal questions in light of R v Casserley (2023), a High Court ruling which reaffirmed that councillors are expected to tolerate robust and even offensive speech in political debate. The judgment emphasised that local authorities should not seek to suppress lawful political speech simply because it causes discomfort to others. Given that Mr Freeston’s remarks were made in a scrutiny panel – where elected representatives are expected to challenge policy – the expectation that he should “moderate” his language appears inconsistent with that ruling.
In response, Mr Freeston accused the council of engaging in “cancel politics” and described the email as “an attack on free speech.” Speaking to The Telegraph, he said: “This type of cancel politics and getting offended by hurty words is exactly the type of thing I am fighting against. Whether they agree or not, it is my right to say what I said.
“This is an attack on free speech,” he added. “Since going public, I have had an outpouring of support for my thoughts. I am saying what the silent majority think. To be frank, people need to get a grip and start behaving like adults. I will not shy away from saying the things that need to be said.
“That is what has got us in this mess – a generation of politicians who are too afraid of being cancelled.”
Mr Freeston’s clash with the council comes just weeks after Bradford councillor Aneesa Akbar was aggressively heckled and told to “shut [her] mouth” while speaking during a debate on violence against women.
It comes just weeks after Bradford councillor Aneesa Akbar was aggressively heckled and told to “shut [her] mouth” while speaking during a debate on violence against women. The incident, which took place in a Bradford City Council meeting, has raised concerns about whether local government is becoming increasingly hostile to elected representatives expressing contentious but lawful views. In both cases, elected representatives found their ability to speak challenged – one through official reprimand, the other through outright intimidation.
Thankfully, however, there are signs of progress. With the FSU’s help, Bromley Council recently became the first local authority in the country to formally adopt free speech protections for councillors.
The target of the new formulation is the vexatious HR-style investigation into politicians with lawful but ‘offensive’ views: something that’s all-too-easy to mount when codes of conduct – as they often do – treat politicians like employees rather than democratically elected individuals duty-bound to represent their constituents.
Bromley Council’s updated code checks this tendency, aligning its constitution with UK law, where lawful interference with political speech must meet a higher threshold than for other types of expression.
This landmark decision sets a powerful precedent. We anticipate that many other councils will follow Bromley’s lead, recognising that they, too, can protect free speech – and now have a model for making it happen. If any councillors would like their council to adopt a similar policy, please contact the team at: help@freespeechunion.org.
There’s more on this story here.
