Who's Lying? (IV)

Meanwhile, here's a little Channel 4-BBC exchange:

Krishnan Guru-Murthy: Extraordinarily the BBC says it will no longer allow journalists to call somebody a liar because it is for audiences to judge motive. Does this include people convicted of telling lies? Or people whose deliberate untruth can be proven?

Andrew Neil: Deliberate untruth is very hard to prove. Our job is to probe for truths and untruths. But we are not judge and jury. It’s for the people to decide and they don’t need our guidance. Just our efforts. I’m very happy with David Jordan’s sound sense.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy: What about somebody convicted of perjury?

Andrew Neil: Then in that specific case, fine to mention it. But not to say you were a proven liar in this so you must be a lying about everything else.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy: Of course. But I’m guessing you would put it to somebody that they are a liar if you have evidence that they have deliberately said things that are untrue. I accept a difference between labelling and putting to them that they are a liar.

Andrew Neil: Then we’re pretty much in agreement! Including your second sentence. I would do that too if I had the evidence.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy: Would you say Trump is a liar?

The conversation seems to have either paused or ended there. Disappointingly, as I'd have liked to hear Andrew Neil's reply to that.