Saturday 15 July 2017

Personal protection

The extraordinary claim from Charles Moore that Laura Kuenssberg has been "given personal protection" by the BBC following online threats from Corbyn supporters is now being widely reported (everywhere from the Sun to the Independent, the Mirror to the Telegraph, the Mail to the UK Press Gazette, the Evening Standard to Metro, RT to the Herald, etc,), and a further BBC source has now been quoted reinforcing the story:
Laura is a well-known public figure and as such the BBC has a duty of care. The very nature of covering politics means sometimes you go to events with big crowds and there can be hostility. When situations arise that are deemed a threat, precautions are taken. 


  1. If Laura K has been threatened to the extent that her impartiality is compromised, then we must ask - is this an isolated incident, or is the practice of influence through intimidation evident elsewhere within the BBC?

    1. That's a fair point. If they know she has been compromised in doing her job as a journalist, it's malpractice to keep her in post.

    2. To:Anonymous. Er, what impartiality? Sisyphus

  2. If only the same precautions were extended to those facing a hate mob when attending, for example, Conservative Party Conferences. Or is that deemed the wrong type of hostility/threat?

  3. Just how many of these complaints have there been, and how many from the other side?

    Aside for that, I think that BBC Trust ruling against her was BS, and evidence of pro-Corbyn bias among Trustees.

  4. Has she been assigned the team Tony got when someone wrote a mean tweet in Europe, or a whole new one? They could start their own army.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.