RT UK

Ahead of the launch of its UK-specific broadcasts, RT said that adverts promoting the channel had been rejected by ad agencies because they felt they would be illegal under UK laws on political advertising. The network posted versions of the adverts on billboards and its website with the word "redacted" on them in an alleged protest. The UK Advertising Standards Authority said it had not banned the ads or even received any complaint about them.[9]

The UK broadcast regulator Ofcom had repeatedly reprimanded the international version of RT for its failure to remain impartial.[7] In July 2014, London-based RT International correspondent Sara Firth resigned, after five years with the channel, calling its coverage of the MH17 disaster, "straw that broke the camel’s back".[10] Shortly after the RT UK operation was launched, Ofcom said sanctions would be imposed if further breaches of the broadcasting code occurred.[11]

In September 2015, Ofcom found RT in breach of the impartiality rules in its coverage of the events in Ukraine and Syria. It also upheld the complaint by the BBC that allegations made in an episode of The Truthseeker that a BBC Panorama film, Saving Syria's Children, had faked a parts of a report on a chemical weapon attack in Syria were "materially misleading".[12][13][14] In another episode of The Truthseeker, named Genocide of Eastern Ukraine, they stated that the Ukrainian government was deliberately bombing civilians, had murdered and tortured journalists, as well as crucifying babies. Ukrainian army forces were accused of "ethnic cleansing" and were compared to the Nazis in World War Two. The only response to the allegations in the broadcast was in the form of a caption saying "Kiev claims it is not committing genocide, denies casualty reports", which appeared on screen for six seconds. According to Ofcom the broadcast had "little or no counterbalance or objectivity".[12] A spokesperson for the media regulator said: "Ofcom found that RT broadcast content that was either materially misleading or not duly impartial. These are significant failings and we are therefore requiring RT to broadcast two clear statements on our decision which correct these failures."[15]

In December 2018, Ofcom ruled that seven programmes broadcast by RT between 17 March and 26 April of that year, in the wake of the Salisbury nerve agent attacks, had breached the UK's impartiality rules; the BBC reported that RT was "extremely disappointed by Ofcom's conclusions".[16][17] RT was fined £200,000 but kept its licence to broadcast in the UK.[18]

In October 2016, RT published a letter sent to "Russia Today TV UK Ltd" by NatWest bank informing the company that it intended to cease the banking facilities provided to it by the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, of which NatWest is a subsidiary.[19][20] RT's editor in Moscow, Margarita Simonyan, tweeted in Russian: "They closed our accounts in Britain. All of them. 'Decision not to be discussed'. Long live freedom of speech!" and Russian MPs, the foreign ministry and human rights officials all condemned the move.[21]

The Russian embassy in London described the move as an "openly political decision", however the British government, which since the 2008 financial crisis has owned the majority of shares in the RBS group, denied being responsible for the bank's actions.[19][21] NatWest subsequently said that it had written to one of RT's suppliers, not to the station itself, and that it would review the decision. RT itself said the company provides all RT services in the UK.[19]

The decision by NatWest/RBS to end banking services was reversed in late January 2017.[22]

Oliver Kamm wrote in The Times in October 2016: "For purportedly expert analysis of world events, RT turns to an assortment of racists, neo-Nazis, UFO buffs, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and obscure fantasists. Admittedly it's also been commended for balance and fairness – by the British National Party."[23] He continued: "This is not a normal news outlet but a conspiracy of fraudsters in the service of a murderous autocracy".[23] In The Observer, Nick Cohen wrote in November 2015 that the channel "feeds the huge western audience that wants to believe that human rights are a sham and democracy a fix. Believe that and you will ask: what right have we to criticise Putin? At least he is honest in his way".[24]