‘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 These accounts, which are no longer active, allegedly supported the government’s position on the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.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

Do your bit for independent journalism

Did you know that less than 1.5% of our readers contribute financially to The Canary? Imagine what we could do if just a few more people joined our movement to achieve a shared vision of a free and fair society where we nurture people and planet.

We need you to help out, if you can.

When you give a monthly amount to fund our work, you are supporting truly independent journalism. We hold power to account and have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence the counterpoint to the mainstream.

You can count on us for rigorous journalism and fearless opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right wing mainstream media.

In return you get:

  • Advert free reading experience
  • Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
  • 20% discount from our shop

 

The Canary Fund 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.