Fact Checks
Claims by politicians, parties and viral accounts — checked against official data. National and local, in one place.
7 published checks are shown here. 57 further entries are drafts under editorial review and are not public. Published entries follow the existing editorial records described in our methodology. A draft is published only after its primary-source links are confirmed. Publication is not a claim of independent assurance. Verdicts describe the claim, never the person making it.
Fact checks and the claims database: what is the difference?
These are fact checks: longer articles that set out how a claim was checked and what the evidence shows. The claims database is a searchable list of individual claims, each with a short rating and its figures. Both show published entries only, and a claim can appear in both.
How we choose what to check
Balanced coverage does not mean an identical number of checks per party. We select on reach, public importance, potential harm, whether the claim is checkable against primary data, and current relevance. Because the governing party makes most of the consequential claims about the state of the country, it is checked most often — our records, including drafts not yet published, currently hold around eighteen entries on Labour and the government, ten on the Conservatives and five on Reform UK. A fact-checker that scrutinised the opposition hardest would not be doing its job.
We do not check claims that name private individuals rather than public figures, and we have withdrawn entries that did. We also withdraw one-off viral fakes that carry no policy consequence — correct as debunks, but they date within weeks and crowd out the work that matters. Withdrawn entries stay in our records with the reason, and are never silently deleted.
7 UK-wide claims and 0 county and local claims. Filter by reach to see the national picture or your own area; every card links to the evidence, and to the data on this site where we hold it. For the full tabular view with sources, see the claims database.
Showing 7 of 7 checks.
- IncorrectUK-wide29–30 Jul 2024Published
“The Southport dance-class attacker was named "Ali Al-Shakati", a Muslim asylum seeker who arrived in the UK by small boat.”
Channel3Now and pseudonymous X accounts · Viral / social media
The name and every detail attached to it were false. Merseyside Police publicly stated on 30 July 2024 that the circulating name was incorrect. The real suspect, Axel Muganwa Rudakubana — a UK-born 17-year-old — was formally named on 1…
- Missing contextUK-wideCirculating 2026Published
“A screenshot showing "Total benefits entitlement £1,151.90 weekly" is shared with the caption "why would I get a job" and "living my best life" — presented as proof a claimant…”
Viral video and reaction stitches · Jobs & welfare
£1,151.90 a week is £59,899 a year, which is far above the benefit cap of £486.98 a week even in London. A household can only receive that much if it is exempt from the cap, and the exemptions are set by law: receipt of PIP, DLA,…
- MisleadingUK-wideCirculating 2026Published
“A table listing PIP, Universal Credit, child elements, DLA and housing support totalling £48,500 a year, captioned "£48,500 for sitting at home." Commenters calculate you would…”
Widely shared breakdown post · Jobs & welfare
The arithmetic may add up; the label does not. £48,500 is £932.69 a week, roughly double the benefit cap, so the household is exempt — and the listed PIP and DLA are exactly why. Neither is an out-of-work benefit. Both are paid to cover…
- UnverifiableUK-wideApr 2026Published
“A widely shared thread describing a brother and partner, neither working, with four children, claiming housing, unemployment, two PIP awards and Carer's Allowance totalling "in…”
@UKwantsmore · Jobs & welfare
A private family's finances cannot be verified, so the account itself is unproven either way. Two things in it are checkable. £3,000 a month is £36,000 a year, well above the £22,020 family cap outside London — consistent with the two PIP…
- MisleadingUK-wideCirculating 2026Published
“"It is time to stop giving benefits to people who choose lifestyle unemployment. Share if you agree." — with comments proposing that claimants be made to do street cleaning.”
Shared meme · Jobs & welfare
The premise is that benefit spending mainly supports people choosing not to work. It does not. Most social security spending goes to pensioners, and most of the rest goes to disabled people, carers, children, housing costs and people who…
- IncorrectUK-wideApr 2026Published
“No child in the UK lives in poverty. Having a free house to live in and hundreds of pounds each month is not living in poverty. This BS poverty narrative needs to stop.”
Reply on a viral benefits thread · Jobs & welfare
UK child poverty is measured and published annually by the Department for Work and Pensions in Households Below Average Income, using a defined threshold of 60% of median household income after housing costs. The most recent statistics…
- Missing contextUK-wideApr 2026Published
“These benefits are tax free whereas my state pension is counted towards my tax free figure... Benefits should be classed as income and taxed accordingly.”
Reply on a viral benefits thread · Jobs & welfare
The factual part of this is correct, and included here for that reason. The State Pension is taxable income and counts against the personal allowance, while PIP, DLA, Attendance Allowance and Universal Credit are not taxed. The reason is…
Seen a claim that needs checking?
Send it over. We prioritise claims by reach, public importance, and whether they can actually be checked against published data — so a link to where you saw it helps more than anything.
Send us a claim →We cannot check everything, and we do not check claims that name private individuals rather than public figures.