Jimmy Savile Discussion: "Dr" Fox cleared of all charges

[Cal]

Cal, this is on the BBC News site now. Thoughts?

I note that Comrade Deputy Harperson this morning issued a note of 'regret' to the BBC politburo. This was phoned-in live to the Today Programme (R4) this morning, much to the relief of comrade Evan Davis who then seemed more than happy to dismiss the entire thing as yet another Daily Heil smear campaign.

One has to remember that Comrade Harperson is, to many inside the BBC at least, the Labour Party Leader-in-Waiting and her many, many friends at the Corporation (publicly funded, don't forget!) need to protect and cosset one of their own - someone they consider very friendly (and useful) to the licence fee, should she successfully make her appointed apotheosis to Chief Comrade.

It's a moment of particular difficulty for the BBC.

[Holpil]

I see the point. It's just a shame that the original source is The Daily Mail. The argument quickly loses credibility when they're the chief proponent of the claim.

I long await the day when it's no longer a two party illusion of democracy and also, yeah, abolish that god awful licence fee.

[Irene Demova]

You've gone strawberry floating mad with the comrade gooseberry fool, it's more over the top than when people are parodying you

[Herdanos]

Cal, this is on the BBC News site now. Thoughts?

I note that Comrade Deputy Harperson this morning issued a note of 'regret' to the BBC politburo. This was phoned-in live to the Today Programme (R4) this morning, much to the relief of comrade Evan Davis who then seemed more than happy to dismiss the entire thing as yet another Daily Heil smear campaign.

One has to remember that Comrade Harperson is, to many inside the BBC at least, the Labour Party Leader-in-Waiting and her many, many friends at the Corporation (publicly funded, don't forget!) need to protect and cosset one of their own - someone they consider very friendly (and useful) to the licence fee, should she successfully make her appointed apotheosis to Chief Comrade.

It's a moment of particular difficulty for the BBC.

1. Who is Harperson?
2. Are you saying that you advocate these kind of smear campaigns? Weren't you the one defending people like Le Vell and Travis before they'd been cleared? But because these people are associated with the Labour party, they're fair game?
3. That part in bold, above. Do you have any evidence for this claim or have you just invented these points to create a neat little circle in which both Labour and the BBC are commie peadoes?
4. At what point will you begin to notice your own tired agenda and/or blatant hypocrisy?

[TigaSefi]

Harriet Har*** really knows how to dig a hole for herself thick cow!

[Photek]

WTF does PIE stand for? (Paedophiles In England?)

EDIT: its ok I got it. (I wasnt far off )

[Poser]

I can't believe PIE is a real thing. It sounds like something from a Ben Elton book, especially with the nudge-nudge, wink-wink acronym. They might as well have called it MUFF.

[Photek]

I can't believe PIE is a real thing. It sounds like something from a Ben Elton book, especially with the nudge-nudge, wink-wink acronym. They might as well have called it MUFF.

or Fiddy Kiddlers.

[Eighthours]

Harman's assertion that the PIE had been 'pushed to the margins' before she joined NCCL is total bollocks. Plenty of evidence turning up on the Web about this.







Any smear that Harman supported paedophiles is clearly ridiculous, but she equally clearly made a misjudgement in joining the NCCL in the first place (with the benefit of hindsight in the knowledge of her future political career) and her response to this episode has been boneheaded at best.

I love how Owen Jones's reaction was to create a petition against the Daily Mail. Lovely flares and chaff. What a shit-shower that man is.

[Cal]

1. Who is Harperson?

Really?

2. Are you saying that you advocate these kind of smear campaigns? Weren't you the one defending people like Le Vell and Travis before they'd been cleared? But because these people are associated with the Labour party, they're fair game?

No.
Partly - I believe I only really chimed in with a definitive opinion once each of them had been cleared (although DLT now faces a retrial on two counts).
I'm going after Harperson, her husband Dromey and Hewitt because the BBC signally failed to say a word about any of this until the Daily Heil's campaign had been running at full tilt for over a week.

3. That part in bold, above. Do you have any evidence for this claim or have you just invented these points to create a neat little circle in which both Labour and the BBC are commie peadoes?

As well being Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, comrade Harperson is also Shadow Culture Secretary. I believe that makes her fairly important in any negotiations regarding the upcoming BBC charter renewal - even more so should the charter renewal slip into the lifetime of the next government (which could well be, if the BBC has luck on its side, a Labour one - kerching!).

4. At what point will you begin to notice your own tired agenda and/or blatant hypocrisy?

At just about the same moment you find yourself able to recognise the familiar, sneering tones of your own belligerence, I dare say.

[Octoroc]

Wait. Nambla wasn't made up by South Park.

I read this as "Namibia".

Imagine my befuddlement.

[Herdanos]

1. Who is Harperson?

Really?

Thanks for answering my question

But because these people are associated with the Labour party, they're fair game?

I'm going after Harperson, her husband Dromey and Hewitt because the BBC signally failed to say a word about any of this until the Daily Heil's campaign had been running at full tilt for over a week.

So you're attacking the reputations of these three people - by way of smear, let's not be ambiguous about this - because the BBC, a separate organisation, failed to report these news stories quickly enough (in your opinion)?

Weren't you the one defending people like Le Vell and Travis before they'd been cleared?

Partly - I believe I only really chimed in with a definitive opinion once each of them had been cleared (although DLT now faces a retrial on two counts).

That's bollocks and you know it. Day after day the papers published headlines that made put that the defendants - DLT, MLV, Bill Roache, some other soap stars and telly 'personalities' - were guilty, and each time you (among others) criticised those papers for essentially reaching judgement before the conclusion of the trial had come out. (And you were entirely right to do so.) But now a paper (the Mail) publishes claims that are clearly a smear against a prominent politician, and a second media outlet is not rushing to publicise those same claims, and you're accusing them not only of poor journalism, but of being in league with the person in question, who as far as we can be aware is innocent of all allegations? Can you not see the blatant hypocrisy there?

3. That part in bold, above. Do you have any evidence for this claim or have you just invented these points to create a neat little circle in which both Labour and the BBC are commie peadoes?

As well being Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, comrade Harperson is also Shadow Culture Secretary. I believe that makes her fairly important in any negotiations regarding the upcoming BBC charter renewal - even more so should the charter renewal slip into the lifetime of the next government (which could well be, if the BBC has luck on its side, a Labour one - kerching!).

So to answer my original question: no, you don't have any evidence

I agree that she is fairly important regarding future negotiations of a charter renewal she may be involved with

But that doesn't - and I fail to see how an adult cannot make this connection themselves - prove that allegations they are a paedophile are true

4. At what point will you begin to notice your own tired agenda and/or blatant hypocrisy?

At just about the same moment you find yourself able to recognise the familiar, sneering tones of your own belligerence, I dare say.

Dare you now. If you can point out any 'familiar sneering' in any other thread then please do so. I don't believe you and I usually come across one another on this board. But let's get down to the issue here. You have previously been an outspoken supporter of respect and decency towards people accused of abhorrent criminal activity and advocated the reserving of judgement until a verdict has been reached in a court of law as to whether the accused is guilty or not. However you have chosen to reverse this approach in this particular case, because the accused has political views that differ from your own, and you have chosen to associate the BBC in this because they failed to declare her guilty from the outset, and are therefore hiding something also.

This is blatantly hypocritical. This is not my opinion - it's a description of your behaviour, based on your posts. You are a hypocrite.

Do you have any principals, or are you happy to suspend them all as and when it suits you, as you're doing here?

I will happily continue to debate this with you, if you'd like to. But the tired and bizarre casting of Beeb personnel as Soviet-era socialists is not helping you here. Nor is your apparent and entirely unfounded belief that they - Labour, the BBC, the paedos - are all somehow in this together.

[Cal]

Thanks for answering my question

You are trolling, plain and simple. When you can respond like a grown-up I'll do so in kind.

So you're attacking the reputations of these three people - by way of smear, let's not be ambiguous about this - because the BBC, a separate organisation, failed to report these news stories quickly enough (in your opinion)?

The claims made against Harman, Dromey and Hewitt are not a smear: they are reflective of facts that have long been in the public record. Facts which have been raised several times in the past (to no effect) and which now appear to have been successfully buried again, thanks in large part to the unwillingness of the BBC to behave like non partisan, objective investigative reporters. The Daily Mail has published enough evidence of the written records of the time to defy any accusation of a 'smear'. PIE's existence as an affiliate of the NCCL at the time these three were working for the NCCL was not a rumour nor an innuendo; it is a matter of record.

Day after day the papers published headlines that made put that the defendants - DLT, MLV, Bill Roache, some other soap stars and telly 'personalities' - were guilty, and each time you (among others) criticised those papers for essentially reaching judgement before the conclusion of the trial had come out. (And you were entirely right to do so.) But now a paper (the Mail) publishes claims that are clearly a smear against a prominent politician, and a second media outlet is not rushing to publicise those same claims, and you're accusing them not only of poor journalism, but of being in league with the person in question, who as far as we can be aware is innocent of all allegations? Can you not see the blatant hypocrisy there?

See my last point above. You can say it as many times as you like, Dan: this story is not a smear. It is a matter of public record. Stop trying to re-write history - you sound as bad as the revisionist BBC.

So to answer my original question: no, you don't have any evidence.

Don't you love it when your critics answer their own questions for you? That smug, self-satisfied tone is so important to get just about right.

I agree that she is fairly important regarding future negotiations of a charter renewal she may be involved with, But that doesn't - and I fail to see how an adult cannot make this connection themselves - prove that allegations they are a paedophile are true

...aaand here you lose me. Not really sure what it is you trying to say in the para above. I don't think I've ever claimed that any of the three named are or ever have been 'a padophile' - is that what you were trying to insinuate? Perhaps you can clarify what the garbled point was that you were attempting to make.

If you can point out any 'familiar sneering' in any other thread then please do so. I don't believe you and I usually come across one another on this board. But let's get down to the issue here. You have previously been an outspoken supporter of respect and decency towards people accused of abhorrent criminal activity and advocated the reserving of judgement until a verdict has been reached in a court of law as to whether the accused is guilty or not. However you have chosen to reverse this approach in this particular case, because the accused has political views that differ from your own, and you have chosen to associate the BBC in this because they failed to declare her guilty from the outset, and are therefore hiding something also.

This is blatantly hypocritical. This is not my opinion - it's a description of your behaviour, based on your posts. You are a hypocrite.

Nice try, Dan, and thanks for the ad hom - a nice touch. But wholly and without exception untrue. I know this is how the left does things (say something is a fact, and then insist it be so - because - and if that doesn't work go straight into the insults).

I'm trying to highlight the deficiencies of the BBC's so-called 'impartiality' when it comes to reporting 'bad news' on their political friends. You seem to think I'm accusing 'the gang of three' of some heinous crime against children - have you not been reading any of this? I'm calling out the BBC for it's blatant reluctance to start reporting on a story where all the facts were and are readily available (unlike the Lord McAlpine case) simply because they didn't want to hurt their Labour friends. I can't blame you for missing this; the BBC themselves seemed incapable of spotting it themselves for over a week after The Daily Mail began splashing the story across their front pages.

Do you have any principals, or are you happy to suspend them all as and when it suits you, as you're doing here? I will happily continue to debate this with you, if you'd like to. But the tired and bizarre casting of Beeb personnel as Soviet-era socialists is not helping you here. Nor is your apparent and entirely unfounded belief that they - Labour, the BBC, the paedos - are all somehow in this together.

Thanks for your concerns, but I see nothing inaccurate, 'tired' or 'bizarre' in casting the discredited BBC as a Soviet-era Politburo. I find it quite apt, absolutely accurate and, above all, intensely amusing - but thanks for your feedback; your opinion is valued.

[Skarjo]

That smug, self-satisfied tone is so important to get just about right.

[Herdanos]

You are trolling, plain and simple. When you can respond like a grown-up I'll do so in kind.

You're still not really answering my questions. The waters are getting muddy here. Let's simplify, both of us.

Question: What have the three Labour politicians done wrong?

Question: Why is it unacceptable for media outlets to report in a judgemental way on allegations of misconduct and/or links to paedophilia in most cases, yet unacceptable for one media outlet to not have done so in this particular case?

[Hexx]

If you think anyone would be critical of tenuous guilt by association you think it would be racist homophobic paedo-loving Cal.

[Cal]

You're still not really answering my questions. The waters are getting muddy here. Let's simplify, both of us.

Question: What have the three Labour politicians done wrong?

All three exercised incredibly poor judgement in the past by knowingly allowing a pro-paedophile organisation (at the time itself campaigning for the right to legalise sex with children as young as 10 years-old) to affiliate with the National Council for Civil Liberties - an organisation which all three worked for during the time PIE was permitted to maintain its (paid) affiliation with the NCCL. Further, on every occasion these facts have come to light since, none of the three has sought to apologise for their appalling lack of judgement - indeed, up until this latest spat Harman herself has remained resolutely, defiantly silent about the matter, refusing to comment. When she did finally break her silence this time around, it was merely to issue a denial via the BBC, followed by a vague, mealy-mouthed expression of 'regret' the next day, when it became clear her efforts to squash her personal history were clearly not adequate. Jack Dromey, Harmon's husband, has insisted he took 'active steps' on 'several occasions' to have PIE expelled from the NCCL during his tenure there: the fact is that PIE were still affiliated to the NCCL when Dromey left the organisation, so whatever he thinks he did to have them expelled clearly wasn't working. Patricia Hewitt has remained almost completely silent throughout all of this as far as I'm aware.

Question: Why is it unacceptable for media outlets to report in a judgemental way on allegations of misconduct and/or links to paedophilia in most cases, yet unacceptable for one media outlet to not have done so in this particular case?

Lord McAlpine. I think that's as good as an example of the BBC's inbuilt bias. Imagine if this story had instead concerned leading Tory grandees instead of upper-echelon Labour figures. How do you imagine the BBC would have reported this? This is the leading complaint, both of myself and of those media commentators not in thrall to the BBC. The Corporation's conspicuous reluctance to even report the NCCL/PIE story at a time headlines about it were screaming across the front of the Daily Mail seems contemptible, especially when one contrasts this with how the BBC behaved in response to nothing more than a whispering campaign against the late - and entirely innocent - Lord McAlpine (Tory).

You see, Dan, to me this has little - if anything - to do with matters of paedophilia and everything to do with the behaviour of the BBC. I'm seeking an explanation as to why the BBC seemed so clearly unwilling to report the 'bad news' on its political friends (at the same time Fleet Street was shouting the story across the rooftops every morning). Where was such hesitancy, such 'journalistic concern for the facts', when they had the hapless Lord McAlpine in their sights?

[Herdanos]

Question: What have the three Labour politicians done wrong?

All three exercised incredibly poor judgement in the past by knowingly allowing a pro-paedophile organisation (at the time itself campaigning for the right to legalise sex with children as young as 10 years-old) to affiliate with the National Council for Civil Liberties - an organisation which all three worked for during the time PIE was permitted to maintain its (paid) affiliation with the NCCL. Further, on every occasion these facts have come to light since, none of the three has sought to apologise for their appalling lack of judgement - indeed, up until this latest spat Harman herself has remained resolutely, defiantly silent about the matter, refusing to comment. When she did finally break her silence this time around, it was merely to issue a denial via the BBC, followed by a vague, mealy-mouthed expression of 'regret' the next day, when it became clear her efforts to squash her personal history were clearly not adequate. Jack Dromey, Harmon's husband, has insisted he took 'active steps' on 'several occasions' to have PIE expelled from the NCCL during his tenure there: the fact is that PIE were still affiliated to the NCCL when Dromey left the organisation, so whatever he thinks he did to have them expelled clearly wasn't working. Patricia Hewitt has remained almost completely silent throughout all of this as far as I'm aware.

Were Harman, Dromey and Hewitt directly responsible for the affiliation of other organisations to the NCCL? Was that a mandate of the post(s) they held within the organisation? If so then I understand the reason why people would be concerned. If not, then I don't think you can accuse them of having made a judgement which they now have to justify.

Question: Why is it unacceptable for media outlets to report in a judgemental way on allegations of misconduct and/or links to paedophilia in most cases, yet unacceptable for one media outlet to not have done so in this particular case?

Lord McAlpine. I think that's as good as an example of the BBC's inbuilt bias. Imagine if this story had instead concerned leading Tory grandees instead of upper-echelon Labour figures. How do you imagine the BBC would have reported this? This is the leading complaint, both of myself and of those media commentators not in thrall to the BBC. The Corporation's conspicuous reluctance to even report the NCCL/PIE story at a time headlines about it were screaming across the front of the Daily Mail seems contemptible, especially when one contrasts this with how the BBC behaved in response to nothing more than a whispering campaign against the late - and entirely innocent - Lord McAlpine (Tory).

You see, Dan, to me this has little - if anything - to do with matters of paedophilia and everything to do with the behaviour of the BBC. I'm seeking an explanation as to why the BBC seemed so clearly unwilling to report the 'bad news' on its political friends (at the same time Fleet Street was shouting the story across the rooftops every morning). Where was such hesitancy, such 'journalistic concern for the facts', when they had the hapless Lord McAlpine in their sights?

But did the BBC directly name McAlpine in the Newsnight programme? (I didn't watch it.) Also - they apologised, donated money to charity, and had George Entwistle resign in the wake of the McAlpine scandal. Which would suggest that they might then tread carefully with future stories relating to allegations against political figures, no?

You're suggesting that were these links to the NCCL a Conservative politicians, then the BBC would be all over this - correct? Yes - as you've mentioned yourself - this is an imagined scenario. You have no way of knowing whether this would be the case or not. You have chosen to assume so because of your own inherent bias against the BBC.

How would you respond to the alternative argument:

The Corporation's conspicuous reluctance to even report the NCCL/PIE story at a time headlines about it were screaming across the front of the Daily Mail seems contemptible

So what you're saying is that because the Mail - a right-wing Conservative-supporting tabloid - deems this story to be particularly newsworthy then the BBC has a professional obligation to report upon it, even though they've had to pay out taxpayers' money in fines previously due to misconduct relating to the reporting of allegations against political figures?

What's the explanation for why the Mail are so willing to report the 'bad news' on their political enemies - and why you're happy to condone this - when you yourself have approved a more measured approach to journalism in this area?

The answer is of course political. You accuse the BBC of a pro-Labour bias which is causing them to be less than impartial. I am accusing you and the Mail of an anti-Labour bias. You are not impartial in this argument - if you were you would be approaching this with the same understanding that you've shown for other prominent figures who have been accused in the press recently. But because you'd like to see the Daily Mail get one over on Labour (and the BBC for good measure) you have no qualms with their journalistic approach in this matter.

[Cal]

Were Harman, Dromey and Hewitt directly responsible for the affiliation of other organisations to the NCCL? Was that a mandate of the post(s) they held within the organisation? If so then I understand the reason why people would be concerned. If not, then I don't think you can accuse them of having made a judgement which they now have to justify.

Nice try. I don't suggest these three personally invited PIE to join the NCCL (PIE became an affiliated member of the NCCL in 1976). I do suggest that all three (Harmon was the NCCL's Legal Officer from 1978-82, Dromey served on the NCCL's executive committee 1970-79 and Hewitt was the NCCL's General Secretary 1978-82) did little or nothing to expell PIE from NCCL affiliation, despite being well aware of what the group stood for and what they were advocating for. PIE were eventually expelled from the NCCL in 1983, one year after both Harmon and Hewitt had already left. None of the three appear to have been responsible for PIE's eventual exclusion from the NCCL.

But did the BBC directly name McAlpine in the Newsnight programme? (I didn't watch it.)

As far as I can recall (I did see the notorious edition of Newsnight in question) McAlpine was referred to as '...a leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years' but this was immaterial; everyone in the 'meeja' by then seemed to know who they were referring to. Indeed several prominent tweeters lived to regret the eagerness with which they then posted the name of Lord McAlpine in connection with the Newsnight 'expose'. See this article in The Guardian for a thorough breakdown of the sequence of events: http://www.theguardian.com/media/greens ... d-mcalpine

Also - they apologised, donated money to charity, and had George Entwistle resign in the wake of the McAlpine scandal. Which would suggest that they might then tread carefully with future stories relating to allegations against political figures, no?

We are still left with a Corporation that on the one hand, when faced with a scandal involving a Tory grandee (and for which they had no evidence whatsoever), were recklessly enthusiastic to publish and be damned, and another case involving Labour grandees (for which there is so much documented evidence it's amazing the BBC could ignore it for so long - and still do) that the Corporation seemed suspiciously reluctant to report on until forced by the sheer pressure of national coverage elsewhere in the press. You may not consider that institutionalised political bias at the BBC, Dan. I do.

You're suggesting that were these links to the NCCL a Conservative politicians, then the BBC would be all over this - correct? Yes - as you've mentioned yourself - this is an imagined scenario. You have no way of knowing whether this would be the case or not. You have chosen to assume so because of your own inherent bias against the BBC.

The BBC's own history is enough to give me a fairly good idea of how they might have chosen to go with the story in such a scenario - but, okay, fair enough; I'll concede that point as one that I cannot prove either way as it's hypothetical.

How would you respond to the alternative argument:

The Corporation's conspicuous reluctance to even report the NCCL/PIE story at a time headlines about it were screaming across the front of the Daily Mail seems contemptible

So what you're saying is that because the Mail - a right-wing Conservative-supporting tabloid - deems this story to be particularly newsworthy then the BBC has a professional obligation to report upon it, even though they've had to pay out taxpayers' money in fines previously due to misconduct relating to the reporting of allegations against political figures?

The BBC have a duty to report the news. This story had already been front page news for over a week (and not just news for the Daily Mail by then) before the BBC finally got around to saying a single word about it. When the BBC did finally respond was it to examine the evidence behind the Mail's claims? To see the NCCL's own documented evidence? To verify the Mail's claims? No - it was allow Harriet Harmon a national platform upon which to issue her denials and refuse to apologise for her oversight whilst at the NCCL. The BBC seemed uninterested in viewing any of the available documentation, in favour of allowing 'one of their own' to state her rebuttal to the Mail. How is that objective, hard-hitting reporting? Where, exactly, is the hour-long special edition of Panorama digging into the truth of this story, given that there is such a factual paper-trail for investigative reporters at the BBC to follow?

What's the explanation for why the Mail are so willing to report the 'bad news' on their political enemies - and why you're happy to condone this - when you yourself have approved a more measured approach to journalism in this area?

Well -

The answer is of course political.

Oh. I see you're back to answering your own questions again.

You accuse the BBC of a pro-Labour bias which is causing them to be less than impartial. I am accusing you and the Mail of an anti-Labour bias. You are not impartial in this argument - if you were you would be approaching this with the same understanding that you've shown for other prominent figures who have been accused in the press recently. But because you'd like to see the Daily Mail get one over on Labour (and the BBC for good measure) you have no qualms with their journalistic approach in this matter.

I'd like to see the BBC give this story - swimming in facts and documented evidence - the prominence it deserves. As a paragon of impartiality it's the least we should expect from the BBC, given the available facts. But will this happen?

[Herdanos]

Were Harman, Dromey and Hewitt directly responsible for the affiliation of other organisations to the NCCL? Was that a mandate of the post(s) they held within the organisation? If so then I understand the reason why people would be concerned. If not, then I don't think you can accuse them of having made a judgement which they now have to justify.

Nice try. I don't suggest these three personally invited PIE to join the NCCL (PIE became an affiliated member of the NCCL in 1976). I do suggest that all three (Harmon was the NCCL's Legal Officer from 1978-82, Dromey served on the NCCL's executive committee 1970-79 and Hewitt was the NCCL's General Secretary 1978-82) did little or nothing to expell PIE from NCCL affiliation, despite being well aware of what the group stood for and what they were advocating for. PIE were eventually expelled from the NCCL in 1983, one year after both Harmon and Hewitt had already left. None of the three appear to have been responsible for PIE's eventual exclusion from the NCCL.

Had the exclusion occurred during their tenure, this would probably still be a story for the likes of the Mail, as I'm sure the people who filled their roles after their exits weren't directly responsible either. It's a case of guilt by association at best.

What's the explanation for why the Mail are so willing to report the 'bad news' on their political enemies - and why you're happy to condone this - when you yourself have approved a more measured approach to journalism in this area?

Well -

The answer is of course political.

Oh. I see you're back to answering your own questions again.

It's true though.

You're a right-winger. You're bound to accuse the BBC of being leftist, because its views are to the left of your own political standpoint. You could easily argue that I'm more of a leftie than I'd admit and that's why I don't view the BBC as particularly biased one way or another. I don't believe that to be the case (clearly) but then, I've been wrong before. As we all have.

The issue here is how much of a story you judge this to be. I consider this to be a large fuss over a small issue, escalated intentionally by those with political intent. You consider this to be underreported, and neglected intentionally by those with political intent. To what extent we are accurate about the political bias of the institutions in question is of course going to be influenced by our own political standpoints.

Having repeatedly (and rightfully) beaten the drum of media hesitancy over related matters recently, I think it's hypocritical that you're advocating the abandonment of such principles in this particular case, and I think that's politically motivated. You, on the other hand, believe that the only reason any such 'principles' are being heeded is because of political motivation. We're not going to agree on this matter. As always seems to be the case, debate is just further entrenching us in our respective viewpoints.

Let's agree to disagree and let the thread get back to normal.

4. At what point will you begin to notice your own tired agenda

This part was probably unnecessary to the discussion at hand and overly personal. Apologies for any offence caused.

EDIT:

I'd like to see the BBC give this story - swimming in facts and documented evidence - the prominence it deserves. As a paragon of impartiality it's the least we should expect from the BBC, given the available facts. But will this happen?

This might be the most you should hope for.