Accuracy and transparency
Editorial Standards
Aneeta.com covers subjects where accuracy matters, including forced marriage, female genital mutilation, safeguarding, law, trigeminal neuralgia and patient experience. I want readers to be able to see not only what I think, but what the evidence supports.
Last reviewed: 21 August 2026.
How information is checked
Where an article contains factual claims about law, Government policy, health, statistics or public institutions, I aim to use authoritative sources wherever possible. These include legislation, Government departments, Parliament, the NHS, NICE, the Crown Prosecution Service, professional bodies, peer-reviewed research and established international organisations. News reporting may provide useful context, particularly in developing cases, but a newspaper headline should not become the evidence for a serious legal or safeguarding claim when a primary source is available.
Law changes
Law and policy change. An article that was accurate when it was written may later need updating. Where an older article is substantially reviewed, the review date should be shown. If the legal position has changed, the article should make that clear rather than quietly presenting old information as current. Jurisdiction matters too. A law applying in England and Wales should not automatically be described as UK-wide.
Health information
I write about trigeminal neuralgia from lived experience and through my work in patient advocacy and charity leadership. I am not a doctor. Health articles on Aneeta.com are intended to explain issues, highlight patient experience and direct readers towards reliable information. They do not provide individual diagnosis or treatment advice. Medical decisions should be discussed with an appropriately qualified healthcare professional.
Safeguarding
Aneeta.com discusses forced marriage, FGM, coercion, child abuse and other forms of harm. Articles should never expose a child, survivor or vulnerable person simply to make a piece of writing more powerful. Identifying or potentially identifying information should not be published without a proper and lawful reason. Where somebody may be at immediate risk, the priority is safeguarding and appropriate specialist help, not storytelling.
Evidence, experience and opinion
There is a difference between evidence and argument. Official statistics can tell us what has been recorded, but they do not always tell us the true scale of hidden abuse. Research can identify patterns without proving why those patterns exist. Lived experience can show what systems feel like from inside them, but it does not replace clinical or population-level evidence. Campaigning language is not the same as a legal definition either. Official bodies generally use the term “honour-based abuse”. In my own campaigning I use “dishonour abuse” because I do not believe coercion, violence or control should ever be described through the language of honour. I make that distinction openly.
Corrections
If something on Aneeta.com is materially wrong, it should be corrected. A correction should protect accuracy, not pride. Substantial updates should be dated where appropriate so readers can understand which version they are reading. To report a factual error, use the Contact page and select “Website or accessibility correction”.
Why this matters
Trust is built slowly and can be lost very quickly. I have spent much of my working life asking institutions to listen more carefully, protect people earlier and tell the truth about difficult subjects. I believe the same standard should apply to my own website. Accuracy before amplification. Evidence before certainty. People before headlines.