It's typical though that they only "partly upheld" the complaint.
The fine folk who reside in the desparate-last-ditch-effort sector of the BBC's complaints process (of what scientific pedigree or level of knowledge?) still judged the main thrust of Nick's report to be "soundly-based", even though they found him to be grossly inaccurate on that one specific point...
...which, I must say, is jolly nice of them.
