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

The document provided proves that Full Fact is a registered charity in England and Wales. The document is official and verifiable.

https://fullfact.org

They publish reports several times a week, sometimes more than once a day. They are really active in comparison to many other fact-checking platforms.

Full Fact is a registered charity so we are legally required to be ‘objective, ‘balanced’, and to observe ‘strict political neutrality’. We monitor media, politicians and pressure groups across the political spectrum.

When publishing roundups (multiple claims from a TV show/debate), if we check a claim from a member of the government, we ensure that we also check one from the member of the official opposition (and vice versa). We also ensure that we do not only check claims from one person in a roundup, and aim for balance from across the debate.

Our policy is to attempt to contact the claimant about their evidence before writing.

We link to primary sources for our factual assertions.

We seek guidance from neutral external experts on particularly complex or specialist topics.

We operate a two-tier factchecker process so all articles go through two people. All factchecks and updates/corrections are reviewed by a senior researcher before publication and our director if the topic is politically sensitive.

Reviewing is restricted to experienced factcheckers. Our six week training programme covers statistics, impartiality, polling and surveys, making graphs, and good communication. Please see attached our reviewing checklist, which is not exhaustive.

Factchecks have a standardised claim and conclusion intended to guide not dictate readers’ conclusions.

Examples of our factchecking:

Claims made by the Conservative party:

Do conservative councils recycle more than Labour ones? - 16 April 2019

Prime Minister’s pension claims don’t adjust for inflation - 9 April 2019

Claims made by the Labour party:

3. Do Labour councils cost you £350 less in council tax? - 10 April 2019

4. Have 200,000 nurses quit the NHS? - 4 April 2019

Claims made by supporters of the UK remaining in the EU:

5. This image on the costs of Brexit is very misleading - 29 March

6. There almost certainly weren’t a million people on the People’s Vote march - 25 March

Claims made by supporters of the UK leaving the EU:

7. Does the public want no deal? - 10 April

8. Is the government prepared for no deal Brexit? - 9 April

Claims made by the media:

9. Front page error from the Times about how much private schools save taxpayers - May 2019

Live factchecking of political debates:

10. https://twitter.com/i/moments/1126117365790519296 (a collection of tweets from our live factchecking of Prime Minister’s Questions) - May 2019

Even if they are working on a very tense environment, considering what politics in the UK is like now, they seem to be keeping their balanced position.

Their policy to attempt to contact the claimant about their evidence before writing seems to be practised regularly.

The way thay explained their fact-checking processes in part of their report named "How we worked out the figures" is satisfactory about their non-partisan methods.

We have rigorous safeguards in place to ensure our neutrality. These have been carefully constructed based on advice from our board and examples ranging from Amnesty International to the BBC.

We have a cross-party board of trustees, which has no involvement in day-to-day editorial decisions (these are the responsibility of the Director).

We have strict operating guidelines and because of our charity status we operate within a legal framework that obliges us to be non-partisan.

Our staff handbook states that staff may not reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party, or express a view for or against any policy which is currently a matter of party political debate, including on social media. Actively campaigning for a party or seeking nomination as a party candidate in local or national election, or as an independent, is incompatible with working at Full Fact. All staff must complete a declaration of personal interests before they start work here.

Full Fact does not express opinions on the topics we check. From time to time we express opinions on matters that directly affect our work (such as statistics policy, our experience of using the press regulator, or freedom of information policy).

Their board members seem to provide diversity and nonpartisan character.

They seem to have a nonpartisan and clean publication strategy both in their website and their social network accounts.

The document they provided regarding nonpartisanship of their members is also satisfactory.

We draw on publicly available information, such as statistics or primary research, to assess the validity of claims. For some topics, such as foreign affairs or defence, there is a lack of independent or unclassified sources, so we are unable to factcheck those claims.

We link to primary sources for all factual assertions. We prefer to link to the data tables, legal document, or relevant page of a PDF report — rather than a press release or summary of a statistical release.

We prefer to link to a specific table rather than a directory of tables, where possible (the user interface of some public information websites does not always allow for as granular a link as we would like). For example, NHS Digital gives only the option of linking directly to a downloadable spreadsheet, or to a directory of spreadsheets, some of which are not relevant to a reader seeking to follow our analysis.

We also use anchor links when linking to parliamentary records, where possible.

Please see https://fullfact.org/finder/. The finder tool empowers people to do independent research round a topic rather than just following links we provide in a factcheck. It provides a guide to the key sources of information and a brief description of some of the variables each data source would be able to provide, so readers don’t have to navigate blind.

Occasionally we seek information /advice from external experts. We will name them and their organisation (if applicable). We normally quote them for their informed judgement and where relevant provide a primary source.

Information about which sources we use is visible on our website: https://fullfact.org/about/frequently-asked-questions/

They draw on publicly available information and they link to web pages or reports that are relevant to their fact checks.

They are very specific in their references (instead of big charts or tables, they enable access to specific table that provides data about relevant subject).

Data sources they used in 10 different cases I examined seem to go to reliable sources.

https://fullfact.org/about/funding/ 

They are surprisingly transparent about the sources of income they have. They are one of the most transparent fact-checking organizations I've seen so far. They did very well in this category.

https://fullfact.org/about/our-team/ 

All the staff is linked and their bios are visible in the website.

Their team page is also accessible for readers.

 https://fullfact.org/about/contact/ 

Their contact button is visible both in desktop and mobile version.

They enabled digital and traditional ways of communication for their readers.

Very satisfactory.

Please see our FAQs page (https://fullfact.org/about/frequently-asked-questions). Especially: 

1. "How do you factcheck?";

2. Section entitled "ABOUT FACTCHECKING";

3. "What kind of sources do you use?";

4. "Why don't you have ratings?"

Their fact-checking methodology is publicly accessible for readers, journalists and experts on their website in FAQ section.

Looking at the subtitles they provided, it is possible to get a clear understanding of their methodology.

On our contact page, we invite readers to submit claims across multiple platforms, under the heading "Got a claim for us to check?" (https://fullfact.org/about/contact). This section also explains what claims we are able to check, including a link to our FAQs page for more information on what kind of claims we can check.

They have a publicly visible contact page. They enable their readers to submit their story ideas/claims through social networks and e-mail. A form box might have functioned better in this case.

https://fullfact.org/about/feedback/                          

They have a feedback section where the way they operate feedbacks are transparent and understandable. 

They explained the feedback evaluation process fairly and clearly as well.

Section seems satisfactory for IFCN's criterions.

https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=correction%20from%3Afullfact%20since%3A2018-05-20%20until%3A2019-05-20&src=typd 

https://fullfact.org/crime/are-majority-youth-knife-offenders-minority-ethnic/

https://twitter.com/FullFact/status/1080411677080858625 

They don't have a specific page on their website for corrections and it is not accessible.

The institution should have a specific part on their website for these corrections to be listed.