‘Fake nurse’ Twitter account researcher responds to ‘fake news’ claims

NHS and Twitter logos
Support us and go ad-free

On 21 April, The Canary’s Tom Coburg reported on claims of a raft of fake Twitter accounts purporting to be NHS workers. These accounts, which are no longer active, allegedly supported the government’s position on the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. It was claimed that 128 accounts had been controlled by a single person, with links to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

The DHSC called the claims “categorically false”. Fact-checking organisation Full Fact has said “There is no evidence” to support the claims. Full Fact mentions the DHSC rebuttal as well as responses from Twitter and Hootsuite, the app allegedly used to handle the multiple accounts.

O’Connell responds

The claims came from John O’Connell. He’s the founder of anti-racist, anti-fascist website Far Right Watch. His tweet has received nearly 25,000 retweets since 5pm on 20 April. During that time, he’s responded individually to a number of comments. Now, he’s shared a statement detailing his current position.

Regarding what he calls “the lack of evidence (so far)”, O’Connell says:

I stated from the outset, quite clearly, that this was the opening of the process, not the culmination and I was clear that further work would be [required]. However we understand in an era of instant 24 hour news gratification that there are some people demanding everything, now. This is not that kind of story.

He continues:

You will recall that I have stated numerous times that there… are key legal reasons for the time frame of further developments, regarding the legality of data gathering methods used by some of our contributors; our legal protection under ‘Public Interest’; and potential threats to commercial access to APIs used in this process. In addition, there is ongoing data analysis to be done. More data has been provided to us which has been parked for the meantime.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free
“Mea Culpa”

O’Connell considers the timing of his claims:

Mea Culpa: Did I post too early, with too much? In hindsight, I would say without a doubt, yes. We’d already been working on this for about ten days. We should have held back until we had more, this we concede. Does this detract from the story? Sadly, even in the long run, it may. One good aspect of the part-story is that the denials issued by those involved have been forthright – and not easily explained or retracted in the future.

Confidence

To the question of whether he has “enough to confirm” the key claims, O’Connell answers: “Undoubtedly, yes” in each case. He adds that there are “31 people working on this in total”. He also states:

Two further options remain open to us to be explored in the next few days: Parliamentary Privilege, and the Parliamentary Select Committee. We have offers of contacts for both, and will be pursuing this.

He concludes by acknowledging the potential fallout of whistleblowing and says:

We seek a way to deliver this story and remain in one piece, legally, financially, mentally.

Featured image via Wikimedia – F / pixabay – edisona

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. It appears that the gentleman has “previous” when it comes to making things up.

      https://fullfact.org/online/evidence-network-fake-nhs-tweets/

      “For the record, this is not the first time we have fact checked a claim that Mr O’Connell has made. His was the first account we were able to find that shared a false quote that went viral during the 2019 election campaign. The quote (in a now-deleted tweet, still available on the Internet Archive) was claimed to be from the leaked US-UK trade documents, and supposedly said that the US reserved the right to “withdraw all trade” if the UK did not agree to discussions about “the sale of all assets within and partnered with the National Health Service”.

      No such quote appeared in the leaked text. When asked by a Twitter user where the quote appeared, Mr O’Connell gave a page reference that did not exist in any of the documents.”

      The latest story makes quite specific claims that a Marketing Agency is behind these fake accounts and that specific individuals are involved – ex civil servants.

      It seems to me that if he has confidence in his so far undisclosed evidence he has nothing to fear legally from the disclosure of the names of the agency and the people; I wonder why he doesn’t name them.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.