Police inquiry into Warwickshire councillor ends with no evidence found

A three-month police investigation into Warwickshire county councillor Mike Bannister over alleged discriminatory remarks ended with no evidence found, according to a Nub News report published on 29 September 2026. The complaints came from Warwickshire Pride and concerned a remark allegedly directed at people protesting in May to retain council funding for the Equality and Inclusion Partnership. Bannister described the allegations as baseless and questioned the handling of witness statements.

May protest and Warwickshire Pride complaints

The complaint arose from a protest about continued council support for the Equality and Inclusion Partnership. Those taking part wanted to retain the £135,000 allocated annually to the partnership, which works on discrimination and hate crime in the community.

Warwickshire Pride complained about alleged discriminatory remarks by Bannister during the protest. The account describes a complaint that a remark was directed at the protesters advocating for the funding to continue.

The supplied summary does not give the words alleged to have been used. It also does not identify individual complainants or witnesses, or give the precise location of the protest.

The allegation therefore needs to be distinguished from an established finding. The checked material reports that complaints were made and investigated, but it does not establish that Bannister made a discriminatory remark. The reported outcome was that the police investigation ended with no evidence found.

Three-month police investigation: key details

The police investigation lasted three months. Although the protest took place in May, the supplied account does not give exact dates for the beginning or end of the inquiry. The publication date should not be read as the date on which police reached their conclusion.

The key details reported in the source are:

The account gives the outcome of the inquiry but does not reproduce a police statement or explain the investigative steps taken. It does not set out which witnesses were approached, what evidence was considered or how police assessed the complaint.

Those details cannot be filled in from the reported duration alone. The three-month period establishes how long Bannister was under investigation, not the sequence of decisions within it.

Bannister challenges allegations and witness handling

Bannister expressed disappointment over the outcome of the police inquiry, according to the supplied summary. He maintained that the allegations were baseless and questioned how witness statements had been handled.

Those are his stated views on the complaint and investigation. The summary does not provide enough detail to explain precisely which aspect of the outcome disappointed him, or what he believed should have happened differently.

It also does not specify which statements he was referring to or describe a particular failure by investigators. His concerns about the handling of statements should therefore not be presented as a confirmed finding about police conduct.

Bannister said this was the second formal complaint made against him during his time as a councillor. He said the first had been resolved.

The account gives no further details about that earlier matter. It does not identify who made the first complaint, what it concerned or how it was resolved. Nor does it say that the earlier complaint involved a police investigation. There is no basis in the checked material for treating the two complaints as involving the same circumstances.

Equality and Inclusion Partnership funding dispute

The protest centred on an annual council allocation of £135,000 to the Equality and Inclusion Partnership. Protesters were seeking the continuation of that support.

The partnership’s work, as described in the source, concerns discrimination and hate crime in the community. That is the context for the demonstration and for the complaint that followed it.

The funding issue and the police inquiry are separate parts of the story:

• The protesters wanted the council’s annual funding for the partnership to continue.
• Warwickshire Pride complained about alleged remarks made during the protest.
• Police investigated the allegations for three months and found no evidence.

The end of the police inquiry does not establish what happened to the funding. The supplied summary does not report a final council decision on the annual allocation.

It also does not give a timetable for a funding decision, describe alternative financial arrangements or set out any changes to the partnership’s work. The £135,000 figure is the annual allocation protesters wanted retained, rather than a confirmed amount lost or newly awarded.

What this means for Kenilworth

For Kenilworth readers, the reported issues concern a Warwickshire county councillor and council funding for an organisation working on discrimination and hate crime in the community.

However, the checked material does not identify a Kenilworth-specific project, service or funding allocation. It does not say how much of the partnership’s work takes place in the town or how local residents access it.

No change to support available in Kenilworth can therefore be confirmed from this report. In particular, the conclusion of the police investigation should not be taken as an announcement that partnership services have either been secured or withdrawn.

The practical funding question remains unanswered in the supplied account: whether the council continued the £135,000 annual allocation. There is also no reported action that Kenilworth residents need to take in response to the investigation’s conclusion.

Details absent from the published account

The supplied summary does not include a response from Warwickshire Pride to the investigation’s outcome. It would be unsupported to suggest that the organisation accepted, challenged or otherwise commented on the result.

The account also does not state Bannister’s party affiliation, electoral division or any specific senior council post. While the original Nub News headline described him as a senior councillor, the role identified in the checked summary is Warwickshire county councillor.

There are no verbatim remarks from the protest or direct quotations from Bannister in the supplied material. His position is reported here in paraphrase, without adding wording that the source does not provide.