Whitestone Insight welcomes the conclusion of the British Polling Council's (BPC) complaints process concerning our assisted dying polling earlier this year. We accept the BPC's findings and have addressed the technical issues identified.

We regret, however, that Dignity in Dying (DiD) has chosen to present those findings in a way which, in our view, conflates its own opinions about our polling with the facts established by the BPC's investigation.

In a blog published on 7 September, DiD suggested that Whitestone had “repeatedly failed” to meet professional standards and acted “without appropriate transparency”. It went on to suggest that our polling “may have misinformed parliamentary debates”.

These are serious claims about a professional polling organisation. We believe they are misleading and wholly disproportionate to the technical breaches actually identified by the BPC and go materially beyond its conclusions. Moreover, the BPC's conclusions should not be presented as establishing matters that its investigation did not determine.

We therefore wish to set out what actually happened, what the BPC found, and why we believe DiD's characterisation is misleading.

What actually happened: the four omnibus polls

Four sets of polling tables were published on Whitestone's website between 16 and 18 March 2026. All four were made available within two working days of the respective clients putting their findings into the public domain, as BPC rules require.

Following a complaint, the BPC identified two issues.

1. A minor delay in publishing data

In its correspondence, the BPC described Whitestone as having been "slightly late" in making data available following publication of a poll. It confirmed that the data were made available immediately after they were requested and that no further action would be taken.

The BPC stated that its primary purpose was transparency and that this had been achieved.

2. A technical breach concerning the publication order of questions

The four sets of polling results were published separately. Although all four sets were available online within two working days of client publication, the order in which they were published did not exactly correspond to the order in which respondents had been asked the questions.

The BPC concluded that, when results from later questions were published before those from earlier questions on the same topic, the wording of the earlier questions should also have been made available.

Importantly, the BPC expressly distinguished between the wording of questions and their results. It stated:

"they would not have been required to release the earlier results, and so there is no rule breach in that regard."

The BPC described the issue as a "technical breach" arising from a lack of understanding of how its rules operated in a "very unusual case".

It also expressly stated:

"We do not believe this was a deliberate attempt by Whitestone to confuse"

It is important to note that the technical breach concerned the timing of disclosure of certain question wording, not the accuracy of the results, the validity of the polling or an obligation to publish additional results.

The Care Not Killing complaint

The BPC also considered a separate complaint concerning polling conducted for Care Not Killing (CNK).

The results of this survey were published in two tranches for two separate campaign events. The BPC confirmed that there is “no problem about presenting the results separately, but because you published the results of the later questions before the earlier ones, our interpretation of the rules is that you should have released the wording of all three questions simultaneously.”

“For this reason, we intend to uphold the complaint, but will make it clear that, given it has been remedied, we consider the matter now resolved.”

As with the four omnibus polls, the issue concerned the timing of disclosure of question wording, rather than any finding that the polling results themselves were inaccurate or invalid.

A proper process that has helped clarify the rules

We recognise the importance of the BPC's role in maintaining transparency and public confidence in opinion polling.

Its complaints process provides an appropriate mechanism for examining concerns, establishing the facts and identifying where members need to improve their practices.

We have engaged with that process constructively and accept its outcome.

Indeed, we believe the investigation has identified a helpful opportunity to clarify how the BPC's rules apply in the specific circumstances of multi-client omnibus surveys, where different sections may be published separately and in a different order from that in which they were asked.

The BPC itself acknowledged the unusual nature of the circumstances and that it plans to clarify its written rules for members and potential complainants. We welcome this development and the BPC’s commitment to ensure that the rules are sufficiently clear for everyone who must apply them.

DiD's claims are disproportionate to the findings

DiD's blog claims that Whitestone "repeatedly failed" to comply with disclosure requirements and "acted without appropriate transparency".

DiD also claims that those citing our polling were unable properly to evaluate the findings and that the polling "may have misinformed parliamentary debates".

We regard these claims as wholly disproportionate to the technical breaches actually identified.

In the case of the four omnibus polls, all four sets of tables were published within two working days of the respective clients putting their findings into the public domain. The technical breach concerned the timing of disclosure of certain question wording.

The BPC did not find that Whitestone was required to publish the results of the unpublished sections, nor did it establish that the polling results were invalid or that Parliament had been misinformed.

In short, there is no evidence that the technical breach materially affected readers' interpretation of the polling or its impact on parliamentary debate. The underlying polling results did not change: the breach concerned when certain question wording was made available. The BPC made no finding that the polling itself was misleading or that Parliament had been misinformed.

DiD is entitled to express its own views about our polling, including the wording of questions and the possible effects of question order. Those are legitimate subjects for professional and public debate.

But there is an important distinction between expressing an opinion about polling and reporting the findings of a professional transparency process.

We regret that DiD's article fails to make that distinction adequately, instead presenting limited and remedied technical disclosure breaches as evidence of a much broader failure of professional standards and transparency.

Our approach to Dignity in Dying

Throughout this matter, as an independent professional polling company we have sought to respond to DiD's inquiries promptly and with respect and openness.

It is therefore unfortunate that DiD has not, in our view, responded in the same spirit, choosing instead to mischaracterise the outcome in terms which we believe are neither fair, proportionate nor fully reflective of the BPC's findings.

We would have welcomed a more constructive approach, recognising both the issues identified and the steps taken to resolve them.

Our commitment to transparency

Whitestone Insight remains fully committed to the BPC's rules and to the highest standards of transparency in our research.

We welcome scrutiny and recognise this as an important part of maintaining public confidence in polling.

Equally, we believe that criticism of polling should be grounded in an accurate account of the evidence and should distinguish clearly between established findings and opinion.

We accept the BPC's ruling, welcome the clarification of its rules that has followed, and consider the matter resolved in accordance with the BPC's conclusions.

We hope that DiD will now reflect the BPC's conclusions accurately in its own public statements.

Whitestone Insight