The charge that the BBC might be deliberately sanitising its coverage of the trial of the alleged murderers of Lee Rigby (in an attempt to reduce anti-Muslim sentiment) is about as serious a charge as you could possibly make against the corporation - and it's one that shouldn't be made lightly.
And yet the signs that the BBC is sanitising the story continue to emerge each day.
What do you make of this?:
Having just come in from work I wanted to read the latest developments from the trial and clicked onto Sky News's account.
This led with the video of Michael Adebolajo's police interview, where he said that killing gives him little joy and that it's not in his character to kill people.
This is the same angle that the BBC is leading its article with too.
The BBC spends far more time than Sky, however, outlining Adebolajo's political points about Britain and about the (alleged) oppression of Muslims. Sky pays markedly less attention to these 'justifications'.
Sky, however, informs us that:
During his police statement, Adebolajo told officers that Drummer Rigby "was struck in the neck with a sharp implement and it was sawed until his head became, you know, almost detached".
The BBC, in contrast, chooses to tone that down - drastically:
He [Adebolajo] described how Fusilier Rigby was killed.
Similarly, while Sky tells us about Adebolajo's complaints about not being allowed to wash the blood off his hands, the BBC chooses to omit that part of the interview completely. Why?
And why choose to spend so much time on on those 'justifications' and 'self-justifications' instead?
Sky then tells us that:
A female juror wept as a pathologist gave the court a detailed breakdown of Drummer Rigby's injuries, which included some stab wounds up to 12cm deep and others that "almost entirely circled" the neck.
The soldier's family decided not to attend court for Dr Simon Poole's graphic evidence.
He said Drummer Rigby was probably knocked unconscious when he was hit by the defendants' car but died from multiple incised wounds inflicted later.
The BBC's account includes none of this testimony. It doesn't mention the weeping female juror either. Why not?
The BBC dwells instead on the testimony of a psychiatrist. Sky also covers his testimony, though in less detail.
It is noticeable, however, that the BBC's account of this part of the trial begins by saying that the psychiatrist concluded that Adebolajo does not have a mental disorder and then goes on to say that "the expert who assessed Mr Adebolajo said he was polite and co-operative and had mental capacity".
We have to wait a few more paragraphs before being told by the BBC that "the defendant 'showed no signs of regret or remorse' about what happened".
Sky News, in contrast, places the latter point first:
He said he showed "no signs of regret or remorse for his actions" but was polite and co-operative with medical staff.
There was no evidence of any mental health problems, he added.
The BBC also includes further 'justifications' given by Adebolajo during his interview with the psychiatrist and about his worries for his own family's feelings. Sky opts to report neither.
From this you can clearly see that the BBC is presenting an account that is much more helpful to Adebolajo's case than Sky News.
And it continues....
The BBC, for example, tells us that jurors were shown photos of a machete and two knives taken at the scene of the crime. Sky tells us that jurors were shown photos of a meat-cleaver, knives and a handgun.
Sky tells us:
DNA recovered from one of the knives matched Adebolajo's, the jury was told.
The BBC doesn't mention that at all.
Sky also tells us:
Other images showed a box containing a block of knives that was found inside the defendants' Vauxhall Tigra car, and the clothing worn by the pair on the day of the attack.
The BBC doesn't mention any of that either.
I'm very wary about making wild accusations against the BBC these days, but a worrying pattern really does seem to emerging in its reporting of this highly sensitive trial. Sanitisation really does seem to be going on - and that would be truly indefensible.
Incidentally, it is also highly suggestive that while both Sky News and ITV News are running live update feeds from the trial, the BBC News website isn't.
Both articles can be seen below the 'Read more' line. Please see what you make of them.