Susanna Siddell
Guest Reporter
The BBC has received backlash after it used a Labour activist to support Rachel Reeves on the Goverment’s claims on the farmers’ death duty.
The BBC Verify article - which was written by "independent tax expert" Dan Neidle - was criticised for its "biased" behaviour after it deleted the article which backed Labour.
Neidle's article - called "How many farms will be affected by Budget tax rises?" - said that the Government’s figures about the number of farms which are likely to be affected by the tax raid was "likely" to be correct.
After the Prime Minister shared the broadcaster’s findings, a political row broke out over the BBC’s independence and impartiality.
This backlash has formed part of a wider retaliatory movement by the agricultural industry, following the major farmers’ protest in Westminster on Tuesday.
The event was attended by more than 10,000 individuals from across the UK, as well as high-profile campaigners, including Nigel Farage, Jeremy Clarkson and Andrew Lloyd Webber.
News websites have conflicting results when it comes to identifying the number of farms who will be directly affected by the Government’s taxes which the Labour Chancellor announced last month.
While Government ministers have insisted that 500 farms will be affected by the tax change, the Country and Business Association has said that the number is likely to be closer to 70,000 and that the change will have "devastating" consequences for families in the industry.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
However, the Labour member dismissed the Association's claims as "hyperbolic fake stats" online.
Following the publication of the article, the BBC faced a surmountable amount of criticism for Neidle’s article - the same man who had previously attacked former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi for his tax affairs.
Since the article was published, the BBC has removed Neidle's claim which sided with the Labour Government, as well as amending his title from "independent tax expert" to "founder of the independent Tax Policy Associates".
One individual shared online: "Woke Biased BBC!"
Others made claims of "corruption" within the BBC, with one saying: "Jeremy Clarkson was right to call you a mouthpiece for the government."
The user later urged their followers to not pay the BBC’s licence fee, while a third account said: "BBC Verify has already lost so much credibility."
A BBC spokesman defended Neidle's participation in the fact-checking article, saying: "There are more than 10 different people/organisations cited in this piece, representing a wide range of views and opinions. Dan Neidle is a tax expert who is commenting as the founder of Tax Policy Associates, an organisation giving advice to a wide range of people."
He added: "This is an independent factual analysis, quoting a number of different organisations and individuals who have a range of different viewpoints.
"It’s routine for us to update online articles, and we’ll continue to update our analysis of this policy as more information and explanation becomes available. If the changes are material or change our conclusion, we add a note informing readers, for transparency."
Find Out More...
The BBC Verify article - which was written by "independent tax expert" Dan Neidle - was criticised for its "biased" behaviour after it deleted the article which backed Labour.
Neidle's article - called "How many farms will be affected by Budget tax rises?" - said that the Government’s figures about the number of farms which are likely to be affected by the tax raid was "likely" to be correct.
After the Prime Minister shared the broadcaster’s findings, a political row broke out over the BBC’s independence and impartiality.
This backlash has formed part of a wider retaliatory movement by the agricultural industry, following the major farmers’ protest in Westminster on Tuesday.
The event was attended by more than 10,000 individuals from across the UK, as well as high-profile campaigners, including Nigel Farage, Jeremy Clarkson and Andrew Lloyd Webber.
News websites have conflicting results when it comes to identifying the number of farms who will be directly affected by the Government’s taxes which the Labour Chancellor announced last month.
While Government ministers have insisted that 500 farms will be affected by the tax change, the Country and Business Association has said that the number is likely to be closer to 70,000 and that the change will have "devastating" consequences for families in the industry.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
- John Prescott dies aged 86 after battle with Alzheimer's as Tony Blair leads tributes
- Elon Musk hits back at MPs' threats to 'summon' him after dire 'Stalin' warning
- Eric Trump: I don’t give a damn about the Mayor of London
However, the Labour member dismissed the Association's claims as "hyperbolic fake stats" online.
Following the publication of the article, the BBC faced a surmountable amount of criticism for Neidle’s article - the same man who had previously attacked former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi for his tax affairs.
Since the article was published, the BBC has removed Neidle's claim which sided with the Labour Government, as well as amending his title from "independent tax expert" to "founder of the independent Tax Policy Associates".
One individual shared online: "Woke Biased BBC!"
Others made claims of "corruption" within the BBC, with one saying: "Jeremy Clarkson was right to call you a mouthpiece for the government."
The user later urged their followers to not pay the BBC’s licence fee, while a third account said: "BBC Verify has already lost so much credibility."
A BBC spokesman defended Neidle's participation in the fact-checking article, saying: "There are more than 10 different people/organisations cited in this piece, representing a wide range of views and opinions. Dan Neidle is a tax expert who is commenting as the founder of Tax Policy Associates, an organisation giving advice to a wide range of people."
He added: "This is an independent factual analysis, quoting a number of different organisations and individuals who have a range of different viewpoints.
"It’s routine for us to update online articles, and we’ll continue to update our analysis of this policy as more information and explanation becomes available. If the changes are material or change our conclusion, we add a note informing readers, for transparency."
Find Out More...