If you read something on Headlines UK, you should be able to trust that it is accurate, fair and properly sourced. This fact-checking policy explains exactly what we verify before publication, how we handle rumour and unconfirmed claims, and what to do if you believe something we have published is wrong. It is designed to give you, the reader, a clear and practical understanding of the standards that every article on this site must meet.
What exactly do you verify before you publish?
Headlines UK verifies every factual claim that underpins a story before the article is published. This includes names, dates, statistics, quotes, legal references, financial figures, policy details and any attributed statements from individuals or organisations. We also verify the identity and authority of all named sources. Our goal is to ensure that no assertion of fact appears in a finished article unless it has been checked against a reliable and verifiable source.
We do not publish speculation as news. If a detail is unconfirmed at the time of writing — for example, the precise cost of a government programme that has not yet been announced — we either delay publication or make the uncertainty explicit in the article. Every piece is reviewed by a human editor before it goes live, and Oliver Reeves, our Standards & Fact-Checking Lead, reviews any article that touches on sensitive topics such as public safety, criminal allegations or significant financial markets.
How do you rank sources for reliability?
We operate a clear source hierarchy, which is detailed on our Sources & Standards page. At the top of the hierarchy are primary sources: official government documents, court records, statutory filings, direct interview transcripts and data published by recognised public bodies such as the Office for National Statistics or the Bank of England. Next come secondary sources from major, established news organisations, academic journals and reputable industry reports. Anonymous or single-source claims are treated with caution: they are never used as the sole basis for a headline or a significant allegation, and any reliance on a single source is disclosed to the reader.
Where a story depends on a leak or an unofficial briefing, we make that clear in the text. We never present rumour as fact. Any information that is not yet independently confirmed is labelled as a claim or an allegation, and the source’s relationship to the story is explained. Our full editorial standards are set out in the Editorial Policy.
What happens if I think something is wrong?
You can report a possible error at any time by emailing factcheck@headlinesuk.uk. That inbox is monitored by Oliver Reeves and the editorial team. We will acknowledge receipt within 24 hours and investigate promptly. If we find that an error has been made, we will correct the article in line with our Corrections Policy and add a note explaining the change. We take mistakes seriously and will always update the record rather than burying a correction.
Our fact-checking process does not end at publication. Articles that later attract significant challenge are re-examined, and any reader report that raises a credible factual question is treated with the same level of rigour as pre-publication verification.
The editorial team includes named editors with specific responsibilities. Our Editor-in-Chief, David Harwood, oversees all editorial standards and final publication decisions. Thomas Whitmore handles politics and policy; Amelia Grant covers business and the economy; Sophie Marlowe leads on culture and lifestyle; and Rebecca Haines manages the daily newsroom and headline review. Their contact details are on our Our Team page, and you are welcome to reach out directly with any concerns.
How this works in practice
Let us take a concrete example. Suppose we are preparing a story about a new government infrastructure budget. Before publication, the reporter — whose name appears on the article — checks the Treasury’s official press release and cross-references the figures with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest forecast. The reporter also interviews a civil servant and a policy analyst, both of whom are identified by name and title. The claims in the article are attributed directly to those sources. Oliver Reeves reviews the story for any unreferenced assertions. If a trade body later disputes one of the spending figures, a reader can email factcheck@headlinesuk.uk, and we will reopen the file, contact the Treasury for clarification, and update the article with a correction note if warranted. That process is laid out step by step in our Corrections Policy.
In short
Headlines UK exists to give you reliable, practical news that you can act on. We verify every factual claim, label anything that is unconfirmed, and correct our work quickly and transparently when we get something wrong. You can always hold us to account by contacting our fact-checking team — and we take that responsibility seriously.