From:

Redacted

Complaint:

Your tweet on 19/11/23 at 19:54 states Sunak will not cut inheritance tax after “realising optics of giving to rich”. The statement about realising optics is completely speculatory and opinion-based. Do better and maybe stop stating you’re an impartial news source when NewsHubGroup clearly have a left wing bias. There’s nothing inherently wrong with biased reporting, but shrouding it in impartiality is disingenuous.

Response:

Thank you for your feedback. Our post reflected concerns outlined in a credible article about the public’s view on reducing inheritance tax during a cost-of-living crisis, citing “accusations that halving the 40 per cent rate would constitute a handout to the rich.” The phrase ‘realising optics’ aimed to capture the idea that considering and subsequently delaying the tax cut suggests an awareness of public perceptions. 

We completely reject your claim that we have a left-wing bias. All our reporting is fair and considered. In instances where we may not meet this standard, we make corrections as needed. Please continue to let us know of any perceived bias in our content.

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

You can’t claim to be impartial while simultaneously editorialising your tweets to include anti-tory sentiment just to appeal to twitter, litterally just say you are a left wing twitter account its not hard. Lying about being impartial is laughable. x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1696506894649639293 

Response:

We didn’t intend for the post to give the impression you received. While we respectfully disagree with your claim of bias against the Conservatives in our posts, we do value your feedback and will give more thought to possible interpretations for future posts.

From:

Cabinet Minister Special Adviser

Complaint: 

Your latest tweet about Robert Jenrick is inaccurate. Robert did not go to the toilet and even the ‘witness’ does not allege that if you read his account. Please can you remove this?

Response:

We mistakenly presented it as a fact despite it being unproven by both the witness and the Sun’s reporting. We apologise for overlooking those details, and we added a quick correction to the thread to explain our error after your complaint. To ensure maximum reach and clarity, we retweeted the correction from our channel. 

However, we chose not to delete the original Tweet completely, as the slight inaccuracy didn’t alter the main story, which is that Mr Jenrick allegedly left the red box unattended for four minutes. We believe it’s important for everyone to be aware of the security concerns there, especially when considering the fact that red boxes contain highly sensitive government documents. The story itself isn’t about where Mr Jenrick allegedly went within the four minutes; it’s about leaving the red box unattended during such time. Any denial by Mr Jenrick regarding not leaving the red box should be addressed with the Sun’s firm reporting, which claims that he did so according to their witness: “A SENIOR Cabinet minister left his top secret briefcase unattended on a public train’s seat.”

You made it clear that this wasn’t enough, repeatedly requesting we take it down completely or you would escalate your complaint. We respect your right to do so and look forward to addressing it further. 

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

You reported that Huw Edwards had resigned from the BBC, this is false and the BBC confirmed this. https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1679174912974503944

Response:

We relayed the real-time announcement from the BBC on their official news channel. However, they promptly released a statement to clear up the misunderstanding, indicating that his resignation hadn’t taken place. Following this, we removed our initial Tweet and shared a revised version to rectify the error. This transpired as you were submitting your complaint, which we received at 18:08 pm – coinciding with the moment we published our updated Tweet.

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

The fact that this account claims to be unbiased is an absolute joke. It has done nothing but spread anti-tory sentiment since the start. The account should cease to call its self impartial.

Response:

We understand your concerns about perceived bias in our posts. Any unintentional bias is obviously not in alignment with our mission, so we appreciate your feedback and we’ll share it with the other admins. 

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

The Guardian and the FT are the only papers that mention today’s election results. The rest are about the Coronation.” Come on now. Council elections are some of the lowest turnout we have in this country and the Coronation is a once in a lifetime event. I really do think its just a non-story

Response:

Our Tweet aimed to showcase the contrasting editorial decisions of different media outlets. The Guardian and the FT opted to incorporate the local election outcomes, whereas most understandably prioritised coverage of the Coronation event, which naturally garnered more interest. Our intention wasn’t to criticise; it was apparent that the Coronation would hold greater significance. We were simply highlighting the divergent news emphases and not suggesting any neglect or omission.

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

You posted a lie about a tory leaflet being taken from a door step without having any evidence it was a tory leaflet and you have still got the post up knowing that it was wrong. So you are deliberately lying and misleading people on twitter i have reported it to twitter and will be requesting my followers to report it aswell. You havee evidence to show it is a green leaflet and instead of taken the post down you have choosen to open a poll

Response:

There isn’t definitive proof that the leaflet in question was a Green leaflet. The Tweet made it clear that it might not be a Tory leaflet by using the term “appears” – and the poll recognised the same. 

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

You only speak about tory, you literally talk about rishi getting moaned at for letting his dog of a lead, but minus on the post for Labour. No word on labour ex council imprisonment for child sex abuse, no mention of labour failed votes to back illegal migration bill. No word on SNP, Libs or I dependant, your a one track page, early days you had fair even reporting. Everyday your posts consist of a couple of no related political posts, and then tory posts. Your happy to post around ex tory mps problems but not ex Labour mps. Your heavy left leaning.

Response:

Thank you for taking the time to write this. Your main point is that our reporting is solely focussed on the Conservatives, but while this is not true, our reporting will inevitably focus more on the Conservatives. This is because they are in government, and so they are the decision-makers. When there are stories about the opposition parties, we report on them. Your claim that we’re “heavy left-leaning” is not supported by any evidence, nor is your claim that we post about non-related posts. If you truly believe this, then please submit again with the links of the Tweets. 

From:

BBC

Complaint:

The BBC will not broadcast an episode of Attenborough’s series. They are still going to broadcast the remaining episodes. https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1634213087556378624

Response:

This is correct and we have now deleted the Tweet. Apologies for the confusion. 

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

The tweet appears to be written from a critical perspective of the Tory attack ad, as it uses the word “mocked” to describe how the ad is being received. The tweet suggests a lack of impartiality towards the Tory attack ad and implies a bias towards Keir Starmer. https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1628726243603410947

Response:

We recognise why someone may take this view. The Tweet in question was based on several Tweets – including from prominent journalists – that raised how the attack ad perhaps didn’t have its intended meaning. 

Our Tweet simply reported on how people were seeing the Tweet, which doesn’t breach our claim to be impartial. If we directly raised the concern from our channel however, then this would be a different case.