From James at Full Fact <[email protected]>
Subject Claims about Home Office expenses raise eyebrows
Date April 2, 2021 7:29 AM
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
The Home Office paid £77,000 to “Beautiful Brows” and "Global Beauty Products Ltd"

2 Apr 2021 | Full Fact's weekly news
View in your browser ([link removed])

FACT CHECK
Claims about Home Office expenses raise eyebrows

Last week, a number of social media users seized on records of Home Office procurement payments to a company called “Beautiful Brows Ltd”.

Viral posts claim that “£77,269” was spent on “eyebrows” for the Home Secretary personally. Others claimed that one company which received money in March last year was actually dissolved in 2018.

But the Home Office has said that money wasn’t spent on beauty products, but on PPE.

As for the accusations of paying a dissolved company, Home Office data shows that in March 2020, six payments worth £52,594 were made to “Beautiful Brows” and two payments worth £24,675 were made to “Global Beauty Products”, totalling £77,269 (the same overall figure cited in a Byline Times article).

Companies House shows that Global Beauty Products Ltd and Beautiful Brows Ltd are both registered to the same Liverpool address, and both share the same director.

While Beautiful Brows Ltd was indeed dissolved on 10 July 2018, Global Beauty Products Ltd is still active.

The Home Office confirmed to Full Fact that Beautiful Brows was the brand but the overarching trading company is called Global Beauty Products.

According to their website, “Beautiful Brows and Lashes Professional” sells PPE as well as lash and eyebrow service paraphernalia. It lists “Global Beauty Products Limited” in its contact details. So the Home Office's story seems to check out.
Behind the brows ([link removed])
How AI helps us detect 100,000 potential claims a day ([link removed])

Last year Full Fact, Africa Check and Chequeado in Argentina received a $2 million grant from Google.org to support work building a new AI tool to fight bad information.

We’re pleased to be able to share some of the results from this ongoing partnership.

Together we developed new tools to help fact checkers spot potential claims online.

We can use new machine-learning tools to automatically identify checkable “claims” across print, online and broadcast media. At the moment, this averages to around 100,000 claims a day—around 1,000 times more than what we were able to detect previously.

But these tools will only work with good access to data. We continue to call for improved access to reliable and thorough data from government and statistical bodies.
More about our tools ([link removed])
Important issues deserve proper scrutiny—not evasive PR campaigns ([link removed])

Wednesday's news agenda was driven by government led discussion of a carefully selected preview of a 258 page report.

By the time the actual report ([link removed]) was released, media lines had been taken, and much of what the public will take away from it will be based on this selective summary.

The topic of race in Britain is too important and sensitive to treat in this way.

We, the public, paid for this report. The Government used that work selectively to manipulate, not to inform us.

Sympathetic journalists chose to go along with it. What they would easily recognise as a crude propaganda technique elsewhere has been reported in places as if nothing out of the ordinary has happened.

This shouldn’t be normal. A press corps that can mount such fierce scrutiny elsewhere does their readers a disservice in playing to the government’s tune.

Would we accept these tactics again when it comes to a future coronavirus inquiry?
Full Fact's take ([link removed])
You can stand up for the honesty we all deserve

As independent, impartial fact checkers, we rely on readers like you to help us call out harmful and misleading information from politicians and press.

In chipping in to support us, you’ll join a growing community that believes we all deserve better than bad information.

Can you stand up for good information?
Yes, I’ll chip in £5 to support fact checking ([link removed])
Yes I'll become a supporter ([link removed])
Covid-19: Behind the death toll ([link removed])

Readers have been asking us different versions of the same question for many months: Is it really true that only 697 people under 60, and without pre-existing health conditions, have died so far of Covid-19?

At the time of writing: yes, this is true.

Others have asked about people without pre-existing health conditions who are under 40. In this group, the total number of Covid deaths is 89.

Some public figures have mentioned these statistics in support of their wider opposition to lockdowns.

However, it should be pointed out that we've seen these Covid deaths in spite of the lockdowns. As we have said before, evidence suggests that the death toll would have been higher without lockdowns.

And while it is true that the pandemic has disproportionately affected older people, unlike previous large crises, such as the Second World War or the Spanish Flu, people dying of Covid have still lost about a decade of life, on average.

The figures our readers have asked about also only focus on deaths due to Covid. But the pandemic is doing great harm to people who do not die as well—affecting people's health and quality of life across the country in many ways, which cannot be captured in the death toll alone.
A deeper look into the statistics ([link removed])
Government asylum claims based on unpublished data ([link removed])

On the Today programme, Home Secretary Priti Patel declared the UK’s asylum system “broken," arguing that "60% of asylum claims were from people who are thought to have entered the UK illegally.”

How can we know if this claim is accurate? The truth is that we can’t.

This statistic came from a recently published consultation document. But when asked, the Home Office did not provide Full Fact with the data behind it.

It is inappropriate for the government to use unpublished evidence to support claims. Figures like these should be published in full, so that anyone can check where they’re from and how they’ve been calculated.

We have asked the Home Office to provide this information through a Freedom of Information request and will update you in due course.
We shouldn't have to take their word for it ([link removed])
MORE FACT CHECKS
Also this week...
* Social media video makes false claims about Covid-19 ([link removed])
* Lateral flow tests are not unsafe ([link removed])
* Viral Instagram video falsely claims Covid-19 was planned ([link removed])

Read our latest fact checks ([link removed])
Stop the spread of bad information ([link removed])

Find these updates useful? We'd be incredibly grateful if you could share our fact checks and help more people access good information.
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Ffullfact.org%2Fonline%2Fhome-office-eyebrows%2F Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Ffullfact.org%2Fonline%2Fhome-office-eyebrows%2F)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
[link removed] Share ([link removed])

============================================================
All the best,
Team Full Fact
** Follow us ([link removed])
** Donate ([link removed])
** Like us ([link removed])
** Follow us ([link removed])
Have any questions or feedback? Please ** get in touch via our contact form ([link removed])
. We do not respond to direct replies to this email address.

Find out ** how Full Fact is funded ([link removed])
.

Copyright © Full Fact 2021 - All rights reserved

A registered charity (no. 1158683) and a non-profit company (no. 6975984) limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales.

Our mailing address is:
2 Carlton Gardens, London, SW1Y 5AA

We use Mailchimp to send you our emails and to see which articles are most popular. ** Read our privacy policy ([link removed])
or ** Mailchimp's privacy policy ([link removed])

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])
Screenshot of the email generated on import

Message Analysis

  • Sender: Full Fact
  • Political Party: n/a
  • Country: United Kingdom
  • State/Locality: n/a
  • Office: n/a
  • Email Providers:
    • MailChimp