Want to support student-run media? Donate here

NEWS HUB GROUP

COMPLAINTS

From: 

Redacted

Complaint:

You posted a story about Tommy Robinson being on the run. He is not on the run, No arrest warrant has been served. He is on holiday with his children, who are high risk individuals. This is doxing, which is illegal. Please retract your post on twitter.

Response:

We shared a story reported by both The National and The Daily Mail, and at no point did we claim he was ‘on the run’. We also included context from a GB News report from last week stating he had ‘fled the country’ after a High Court arrest warrant was issued, which both of the above publications confirmed.

Doxxing refers to the unwanted publication of someone’s address, private information, or location. According to reports from both publications mentioned, Open-Source Intelligence methods were used to determine the location of the individual known as Tommy Robinson based on his own social media posts.

From: 

Redacted

Complaint:

This tweet https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1820090869388836982 uses the term “illegal migrants” inaccurately. There is nothing to suggest that the people housed in the Holiday Inn Express in Rotherham are illegal migrants and the correct term “asylum seekers” should have been used instead. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim. The UK is a signatory of the Convention and as such anyone housed in this hotel should be deemed an “asylum seeker” instead. I would argue this usage is inaccurate and discriminatory and as such breaches Section 1 (Accuracy) and Section 4 (Discrimination) of the IMPRESS standards code. I would also add that the use of the term “protestors” is unethical as it helps legitimise a pogrom. Publishers across the political spectrum (The Daily Mail, The Guardian) have all referred to these people as “rioters” or “thugs” and I think this would be a more accurate and ethical term to have used. However the IMPRESS code allows publishers to be politically partisan and I don’t think this use was a breach of the code.

Response:

The precise identity of those housed in the hotel is unclear, with reports suggesting a mix of asylum seekers and individuals without legal authorisation to be in the UK after having their claims for asylum rejected. The latter group may be temporarily housed in hotels if detention centers are at capacity or if other issues delay their deportation. Upon learning that asylum seekers were also being accommodated in the hotel, we updated the post with this information as a quote.

For the hotel housing asylum seekers in Tamworth that was partially set on fire the same evening, we used the term ‘asylum seekers’ as multiple reports at the time confirmed this information. This was not the case with the Rotherham hotel, where reports varied on who was inside, with some publications referring to them as migrants awaiting deportation and others as asylum seekers. As a news aggregator, it is challenging to cut through the speculation, but as soon as we confirmed that asylum seekers were being housed there, we updated our information accordingly.

Your feedback on using the term ‘protestors’ to describe the events at the Rotherham hotel is noted. For all future posts that day, we used ‘rioters’ and will continue to assess the terms we use to ensure they are fair and accurate descriptions.

From: 

Anonymous

Complaint:

Tweets today pertaining to “illegal migrants” were actually about asylum seekers. These are two different things, and refusing to aknowledge that is a gross mischaracterisation which will aid in aggravating the national picture over the coming days.

Response:

The precise identity of those housed in the hotel is unclear, with reports suggesting a mix of asylum seekers and individuals without legal authorisation. The latter group may be temporarily housed in hotels if detention centers are at capacity or if other issues delay their deportation. Upon learning that asylum seekers were also being accommodated in the hotel, we updated the post with this information as a quote.

From: 

Anonymous

Complaint:

You referred to the occupants of the Rotherham hotel as illegal immigrants. This is false . They are perfectly legal asylum seekers (illegal immigrants can be deported immediately, but only after their case is processed). Asylum seekers are as entitled to due process of law as anyone else.

Response:

The precise identity of those housed in the hotel is unclear, with reports suggesting a mix of asylum seekers and individuals without legal authorisation. The latter group may be temporarily housed in hotels if detention centers are at capacity or if other issues delay their deportation. Upon learning that asylum seekers were also being accommodated in the hotel, we updated the post with this information as a quote.

From: 

Redacted

Complaint:

You again refer incorrectly protesters on the 30th July as “far right” you have no proof what their political persuasion is you just repeat lazy tropes by the main stream media. These people are angry with what is going on 3 kids murdered all inflamed by organisations like you that lie and make wild assumptions retract it and appologise.

Response:

Thank you for your feedback regarding our recent coverage. We used the term “far right” in our report on the 30th July protest due to specific circumstances. During this event, bricks were thrown at a local mosque, Islamophobic slurs were chanted, and violence was directed towards the police by individuals wearing masks and hoods. Merseyside Police confirmed that suspected members of the English Defence League were behind this protest. Additionally, the Southport protests were driven by disinformation on social media, specifically false claims that the suspect in the Southport stabbings was a Muslim asylum seeker. Given these details, we felt it was appropriate to use the term “far right.”
 
In contrast, the protest outside 10 Downing Street on 31st July, organised by the “Enough is Enough” group, focused on different issues and did not involve the same elements of violence or hate speech. Labeling the Downing Street protesters as “far right” would not have accurately reflected the nature of their demonstration, which was distinct from the Southport event in both intent and behaviour.

From: 

James Giles, Chief of Staff to George Galloway

Complaint:

I write on behalf of George Galloway, Leader of the Workers Party of Britain. I am his Chief of Staff, as well as a Member of the Chartered Institute, a press card holder and the former Editor of an IMPRESS regulated publication.
 
I am making a Formal complaint apropos the conduct of ‘admin’ Matt Daniel and the coverage from Politics UK in recent days.
 
I attach a selection of coverage in recent days.
 
Matt Daniel’s interview with George Galloway
 
Starting first with this interview, in this interview Mr Galloway explicitly states to Mr Daniel that there have been no constituency polls. Mr Daniel rebuts this, reading out the statistics from the UK Polling Report that show Labour at near 62% and Mr Galloway at less than 1%.
 
PoliticsUK writes ‘EXCL: George Galloway hangs up on us after we put polling data to him that he is projected to lose his seat’.
 
Both the interview and subsequent Tweets are a clear breach of the IMPRESS code of conduct.
 
A cursory glance of UK polling report, from which these statistics were taken, will show that the Rochdale result is self-described by the stat’s author as “a projection, not a poll” based on national trends (https://pollingreport.uk/articles/edge-cases-jeremy-corbyn-lee-anderson-george-galloway-richard-tice).
 
This is a breach of Para1 of the code “Publishers must take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy.” – especially given it was read out after Mr Galloway correctly said there had been no constituency polling done.
 
Matt Daniel doubles down on this inaccurate statement on June 12, writing ‘alongside the poll presented in the podcast…’ listing another national projection based on no constituency-specific poll.
 
Combined, this amounts to a further breach ‘Whilst free to be partisan, publishers must not misrepresent or distort the facts.’ – it is clear the facts have been repeatedly distorted by Mr Daniel. I would finally add Electoral Calculus, also a ‘projection’ predicts Mr Galloway will win the seat, further demonstrating the cherry-picking of projections in an attempt to distort and be partisan.
 
Finally, Mr Daniel also broke Para5 of the IMPRESS code by not identifying himself as a journalist nor providing the name of his publication when making contact with Mr Galloway, as the interview clearly shows.
 
Subsequent PoliticsUK posts
 
This publication has now resorted to increasingly obsessive Tweets about Mr Galloway which make no effort to distinguish between statements of fact and opinion (another breach of the IMPRESS code).
 
These include: “A furious George Galloway whines that he is not on the ITV debate” without any source. It is impossible to infer Mr Galloway’s emotion from the Tweet he released at the time, and the term ‘whine’ is further evidence of a clear prejudice against Mr Galloway.
 
This was followed up some 40 minutes later by a further Tweet reading “NEW: George Galloway, who is 5’6” (1.68m), has called Angela Rayner, also 1.68m, a “short plank”” – the fact these Tweets are so close to one another verges on obsessive.
 
It is with this in mind that this should also be considered an SAR for Mr Galloway, asking for all personal data held by the publication which mentions Mr Galloway or is about Mr Galloway to be released to him under UK GDPR.
 
Mr Daniel follows these Tweets up late at night with his own opinion which further reinforces the view.
 
Resolution
 
We require an apology from Mr Daniel and the publication with equal weight to the original posts, the removal of inaccuracies from the interview and an acknowledgement within the post that PoliticsUK were inaccurate in their questioning, and an undertaking that Mr Daniel and the publication will not let their personal prejudices detract from the publication’s output again in relation to Mr Galloway.
 
We reserve the right to take further legal remedial action and instruct Counsel should this matter not be resolved.
 
With this in mind, I impress upon you the need to preserve documentation in line with the Civil Procedure Rules in England and Wales.
 
I hope for a swift resolution. Mr Galloway is copied in.
 
Response:
 
You can read our response to this complaint here. 

From: 

Anonymous

Complaint:

Video is from 2022, will you retract your statement and publish a correction so everyone who saw it doesn’t get the wrong picture? Especially considering that it relates to the general election? https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1793333571253371348

Response:

We deleted this post shortly after it was published. We apologise for the confusion it caused. 

From: 

Anonymous

Complaint:

You talk about what Labour Shadow Secretary said in this tweet (https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1785405435312271517?s=46) but fail to mention the response from the Home Sec in order to give people all the info especially during an election year (redacted). 

Response:

We are not currently on the Home Secretary’s press list and did not receive the quote in question. Additionally, we were unaware of the quote published by the journalist. For comprehensive coverage on this matter, please refer to the article linked below our post.

From: 

Anonymous

Complaint:

Wales first minister is also facing allegations of corruption but you didn’t report on it despite reporting scotlands first minister https://x.com/jaheale/status/1784955360664601012?s=46&t=ICKrZstrayMGiDUAuul7DQ

Response:

We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. As a student-run organisation with volunteer admins, we have limited capacity and might miss certain issues. Thank you for your understanding and we will be closely following the above. 

From: 

Conservative MP Paul Scully

Complaint:

The tweet by @politicsuk on 7th April 2024, about an otherwise excellent and representative coverage of my interview with Francis Elliott, read “NEW: Paul Scully says Brexit will be the reason why the Tories will lose the next general election”  

I believe this to be a desperately inaccurate tweet. It implied that I believe Brexit is bad because it will lose us the election. I said that the arguments in the period afterwards fuelled the infighting in the Conservative parliamentary party. The author can infer that’s what will lose us the election but that’s their assumption. My point represented clearly in the article is that what happened in the period after Brexit has made the party unleadable. 

The section of the interview that pertains reads: “Whoever the next leader they have to be the leader of what is currently an unleadable party,” he says. How did it come to this? Scully, himself an ardent Brexiter, blames the rancour of that debate. “What we saw through the Brexit years when parliament was in stasis..was lots of people saying things that couldn’t be unsaid.” “The problem is that it becomes easier to do that the next time and the next time. Since then we’ve had arguments about our approach to lockdown, the economy, any number of things. They are not looking for ways to get together but to drag the party in their mould.” 

I contacted @politicsUK to tell them my view informally but they sent me this link which I assume now makes it formal. 

Response:

Upon careful consideration and discussion, we recognise that we fell short of our usual standards in this instance. The post was not subjected to our customary rigorous checks, as the admin responsible did not receive a timely response for approval, which is a review process to ensure all our output is factual and free of bias. After speaking with the admin, it has become apparent that there was an overinterpretation of the content, partially influenced by a similar headline from ‘i’ news.
 
We acknowledge the significance of accurate and responsible reporting, and in this case, we did not meet those standards. The tweet in question has been removed from our page. We extend our sincerest apologies for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused. Being a student-run organisation, while we strive for professionalism, we sometimes fall short, as was the case here.
 
To ensure this does not happen again, we have reminded all admins of their duty to follow the correct approval process before posting tweets. 
 
Thank you for your understanding and for alerting us to this issue. We trust that this action and our acknowledgement of the error will bring this matter to a satisfactory close. 
 

From: 

Anonymous

Complaint:

Some tweets lend undue credibility to reports based on anonymous sources. For instance, at 14:52 on the 21st of February 2024, the account posted the following tweet was posted: ==== START OF TWEET ==== 🚨 NEW: Senior Labour figures made it clear to the Speaker that they would bring him down after the election if he didn’t call Labour’s Gaza amendment “you will need our votes to be re-elected as speaker after election” [@nicholaswatt] ==== END OF TWEET ==== My first issue with this tweet pertains to the first sentence. It states that “Senior Labour figures made it clear to the Speaker that they would bring him down after the election if he didn’t call Labour’s Gaza amendment” as if it was a fact. It assumes that the senior labour source was telling the truth and was not mistaken. The only fact that is established by Watt’s tweets is that a senior labour source has *told* him that threats had been made to the Speaker. This does of course assume that Watt is not lying or mistaken, but, given he is a journalist working at a public service broadcaster, assuming this is very different to the assumption you made regarding the source. I do note that a second tweet was posted in the same thread with Labour’s response. However, I do not believe that this is sufficient for two reasons:

1. It does not negate the fact that you lent undue credibility to the claim that Labour placed pressure on the Speaker.

2. This second tweet was posted eight minutes after the first, given how fast-paced events yesterday were, this is enough time for the initial tweet containing your assumption to be seen by a great number of people (without Labour’s response).

My second issue with this tweet is that it makes it seem like the quote is directly from Labour sources, however, this is not the case. The quote is in fact from Nicholas Watt’s original thread, which does not contain that phrase in quotation marks. In fact, I would argue that this phrase reads as a Watt’s summarisation of the message he’d been told had been given to the Speaker. Whether or not it was a direct quotation doesn’t really matter though, as Watt did not indicate that it was, and therefore I would argue that you shouldn’t have assumed it was. I should make clear that I am not alleging that this kind of error is the result of any party political bias. While there is no way of me ruling out that being a factor, I am more inclined to believe that this sort of mistake is the consequence of writing the tweets as fast as possible. This is mainly because this is not the first time I’ve seen you make this sort of assumption and they haven’t all benefited a single party. I’d also like to clarify that my complaint has very little to do with the substance of the tweet, I am not making any claim about the accuracy of the source’s claim. Finally, if I might be so bold as to suggest some potential solutions to the issues raised above: – I would argue that the additional time it takes to ensure the account tweets do not contain assumptions is probably worth it for the improved accuracy. – I note that there is a contention between the simple wording of the account’s tweets (which is something I generally like, as it makes them easy to digest quickly) and ensuring they do not contain the kind of assumptions I’ve set out above. – Ensuring that you always link the specific tweet you’ve used as a source (in addition to the source account) would allow people to quickly read the original tweets should they wish to, and limit the effect of any errors regarding quotations like the one highlighted above. This could be done in the replies to the original tweet like you already do for external articles. [This complaint was brought to you by Dyslexia. May contain poor spelling and grammatical errors.]

Response:

Thanks for reaching out and we really appreciate your detailed feedback. You’re right about the way we presented the information in that post. The admin who wrote it relied on Nicholas Watt’s reputation as a senior journalist and took his report to be entirely factual. In retrospect, the admin realises this approach was a mistake and that they should have made sure it was a claim.
 
This issue was indeed flagged by other admins post-publication, but unfortunately, it bypassed our standard moderation checks as the admin was working solo at that time. We’re addressing this urgently, and we’ve already started bringing on new admins in the last few days to bolster our team and improve our review process.
 
Your input is greatly appreciated and has been fully shared with all admins, who are also thankful for your feedback. Feel free to keep the feedback coming if you have any more observations or concerns.
 

From: 

Anonymous

Complaint:

You mislead people saying 3 people changed their mind but 8 remain undecided https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1757154211156869491?s=46&t=ICKrZstrayMGiDUAuul7DQ If you use the official exit survey 50% said they would vote Tory now [redacted link] Why are you trying to mislead people by picking only the sample that suits a singular narrative and doesn’t provide a holistic view?

Response:

The exit survey became available 42 minutes after our initial post. We added it to the post shortly after it was released.

From: 

Anonymous

Complaint: 

Why haven’t you reported on polls being investigated and just cited them as accurate https://x.com/elenicourea/status/1750529785409986855?s=46&t=ICKrZstrayMGiDUAuul7DQ

Response:

The YouGov poll we recently referenced is not being investigated. The British Polling Council has requested YouGov to clarify who sponsored the poll. Regardless of this information, the poll’s accuracy remains unaffected as it adhered to the established YouGov methodology. 

For more details, please visit: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48462-yougov-mrp-on-best-prime-ministers-for-conservative-britain-alliance

From: 

Anonymous

Complaint: 

Your recent video about the PM “walking off” is inaccurate ( https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1748343251038261457?s=46&t=ICKrZstrayMGiDUAuul7DQ ) if you watch the full video you can see they walked off together and continued chatting https://x.com/itvnewspolitics/status/1748362936349794483?s=46&t=ICKrZstrayMGiDUAuul7DQ

Response:

We quickly realised this error and fixed the post. The mix-up occurred due to a shortened Sky News clip being aired on their channels. The full, unedited video could be found on their live politics page. We apologise for the confusion. 

From: 

Anonymous

Complaint: 

You claim to be impartial but you’ve constantly picked and chosen topics to support a leftist narrative. You repeatedly report stories in a manner to make the tories look bad (all portray them in a negative light and you ignore positive teports) and you only post positive stories for the Labour Party and disregard other that portray them in a negative light. You must either stop claiming to be impartial or actually be impartial, this is really important especially now due to us entering an election year.

Response:

Thanks for reaching out with your concerns.

Keeping our reporting impartial, especially during an election year, is something we take very seriously. It’s interesting to note that we receive comments about bias towards both the Conservative and Labour party, which suggests to us that we strike the right balance in our coverage. 

Regarding the selection of topics, as a student-run and volunteer organisation, we do face some limitations in our resources. This can impact our coverage at different times. However, we’re actively working on expanding our team to improve our reporting and ensure it remains thorough and fair.

If you notice any unintentional bias in our content, please continue to let us know. Providing specific examples would be really helpful; you can use the form below or message us directly on X.

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 reported the live statement from the BBC on their own news channel, but they quickly issued a clarification stating that he had not resigned. Subsequently, we deleted our original Tweet and posted a new one to correct the information. This occurred while you were sending your complaint, which was received by us at 18:08pm – the same time our new Tweet was posted.

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 was simply highlighting the different editorial choices made by various publications. The Guardian and the FT chose to include the local election results, while the majority understandably centered their coverage on the Coronation. This isn’t a critique, the Coronation was naturally going to capture more attention. We were merely pointing out these differences in news focus, rather than implying any oversight. 

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 Tories, but while this is not true, our reporting will inevitably focus more on the Tories. 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:

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

Response:

This is correct and we have now deleted the Tweet. 

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1628726243603410947 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.

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. 

We can look into complaints about items we have published which are in our control. If you wish to complain informally, please use the form below and we will publish your complaint on this page. You have the option to submit anonymously. We adhere to the Standards Code adopted by Impress and can only deal with complaints which relate to an alleged breach of the standards set out in this Code: https://www.impress.press/standards. 

We can only deal with your complaint if you are:

  • personally and directly affected by an alleged breach of the Code
  • a representative group affected by an alleged breach of the Code, where there is public interest in your complaint
  • a third party seeking to ensure accuracy of published information

We are also regulated by Impress, but initial complaints must be made to us at News Hub Group in writing at the following address:

E-mail: complaints@newshubgroup.com

We will acknowledge your complaint by e-mail or in writing within 7 calendar days and will normally respond to your complaint with a final decision letter within 21 calendar days.   If we uphold your complaint, we will tell you the remedial actions we have taken.

If you are not satisfied with the final response to your complaint, or if you do not hear from us within 21 calendar days of submitting your complaint, then you can refer your complaint to our Independent regulator Impress using the following information:

NEWS HUB GROUP

News Hub Group Ltd owns and operates Politics UK and Global. 

X-twitter Instagram Linkedin-in

Channels

News

Company

Account

Copyright @ 2024. All rights reserved.