'None of them paid anything for almost ruining my life.'

The Daily Mail's moving interview with Sir Cliff Richard today is a must-read.

What he endured mustn't be forgotten.

Mail journalist Stephen Wright notes, as his report proceeds, that:

What becomes increasingly evident as our interview proceeds is that he is not just angry and disappointed with the police, he feels even more let down by the BBC.

What Sir Cliff wants is something the BBC is almost invariably very reluctant to offer: “a full, un-caveated, apology from the corporation”.

The old joke that “executive heads will roll” after BBC scandals isn't as funny as it used to be because even executive heads never seem to roll these days, except to roll upwards:

He is deeply unhappy that former BBC director-general Lord Hall emerged unscathed from the debacle and has retired, that director of news Fran Unsworth — who signed off the use of the footage of the police raid on Cliff's home — is soon to retire, and the journalist who covered the raid, Dan Johnson, has seen his career go from strength to strength.

'The BBC were out for the scoop, weren't they?' says Cliff. 'None of them suffered anything, that's what bugs me. They all got on quite well after what they did to me. None of them paid anything for almost ruining my life.'

Such behaviour can rebound on the BBC as a whole though:

Referring to his legal action against the corporation (which saw him win £210,000 in damages), he adds: 'We were prepared to stop everything if they apologised. Halfway through the court case, if they [had] apologised, we would have said, 'OK, thanks'. But they didn't. So I am still frustrated.'

But it only seems to ever rebound financially - at that doesn't hurt the BBC either because BBC because licence fee payers pick up the costs.

The corporation remains pig-headed and largely unaccountable.

Recommended reading

Stephen Glover lays out a detailed charge list against BBC Radio 4' Today programme at the Mail: 

A week in the life of Today that has made me despair of BBC bias: Flagship news show offers only a Left-wing progressive take on everything from Brexit to statue toppling and the NHS.

I thought of attempting a summary of the piece, but the detail is what's important and it's well worth reading from start to finish. 

And I hope the people behind the Today programme read it too, and don't just sneeringly dismiss it. The one prediction I'd make is that if Nick Robinson does respond, he will just sneer at it.

Here's a taster - the section headlined TOPPLING OF THE COLSTON STATUE:

On Wednesday a jury in Bristol acquitted four people responsible for toppling a statue of the 17th-century slave trader and philanthropist Edward Colston in June 2020. 

The following morning, Today interviewed the distinguished black historian David Olusoga. He declared that the acquittal, which he enthusiastically supported, was a ‘historic landmark’. 

During a sympathetic interview by Nick Robinson, Professor Olusoga stated that the jury’s decision hadn’t created ‘a legal precedent’. That is highly debatable, yet he wasn’t challenged. Nor did Mr Robinson care to mention that Mr Olusoga gave evidence for the defence during the trial. 

Colston was obviously responsible for many wicked acts. But no one was given an opportunity by the Today programme — Mr Olusoga being the sole interviewee — to say that it is wrong to go around toppling statues of long dead people, whatever some may think of them. 

Yet another example of Today ignoring one side of an argument because it doesn’t approve of it.

Update: David Olusoga was also interviewed about it by BBC Breakfast that same morning. 

Further Update: I see that blog favourite Dominic Casciani has been reporting developments in this story as impartially as ever yesterday evening and this morning, giving a wholly one-sided take on the matter: 

If the Attorney General asks the Court of Appeal to review the case, it won't be able to reverse any of the acquittals, let alone order a retrial, but the judges could consider whether the case's outcome means the law needs clarifying for future cases. The protesters had told the jury the deeply divisive statue belonged to the city's people, who largely wanted it removed. They added that its continued presence amounted to crimes of indecency and abuse that caused distress, and far from damaging its value the graffiti-daubed statue was now worth vastly more since its installation in a museum. They also argued the prosecution was disproportionate in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling on the boundary between protest and crime. One of the defence team Raj Chada said there was no confusion about the law other than among some Conservative MPs. He said the review would smack of Trumpian politics and would undermine trial by jury, a cornerstone of British justice.

That defence case-style contribution evidently got the seal of approval from whoever edited Radio 4's Six O'Clock News and Midnight News. 

A gruesome tale

I was going to write about this first thing yesterday morning, but couldn't think what to say. Plus it's such a gruesome story that it's not something I particularly want to think about, but it's Saturday afternoon and I've taken a deep breath...

Under the banner BBC USED LICENCE FEE PAYERS MONEY TO LAVISH TENS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS ON TWO MURDERERS, the Defund the BBC campaign has taken up the outrage of many on reading the Daily Mail's story about it yesterday, tweeting:

This story is so outrageous it’s almost hard to believe. Two men with previous violent convictions that the BBC hired, and paid £52,000 for their last bit of work alone, have been convicted of murdering a man and forcing his children to watch him die.

The BBC's role in it, as presented by the Mail, is quite complicated and has several facets, but I'll try to boil it down into eight points:

1. Both murderers were used as undercover operatives on several BBC projects, being paid considerable amounts of money by the BBC. 
2. But they weren't murderers when the BBC producer at the time, Fiona Campbell, used them on her undercover crime documentaries. All she could have known about them was that one of them had a conviction for violence and the other had been cleared on a rape charge. 
3. The murder took place during the post-production stage of their final BBC investigation together when they were used as consultants. 
4. Ms Campbell's decision to use the men was signed off by three senior figures at the BBC back then: Peter Horrocks, the then-head of current affairs who went on to become the director of the World Service, Steven Whittle, the head of editorial policy, and Roger Law, the head of the BBC legal department.
5. Despite one of the murderer's being jailed and the other going on the run after the murder, the BBC broadcast this final documentary, including the pair’s secretly filmed footage. 
6. Ms Campbell told police she didn't ask them how they obtained information.
7. Ms Campbell was criticised by a judge in a separate trial related to the pair’s involvement in the counterfeiting programme for allowing them to operate without effective scrutiny.
8. Rosie Campbell is now the £215,000-a-year controller of BBC3, and credited with hits like Fleabag, Normal People and Killing Eve. 

It raises many ethical questions but, given that her bosses authorised their use and it was evidently legal, I don't think Fiona Campbell will face any questions from her present bosses over this.

That said, it would be interesting to know from her present bosses: [a] if the BBC would still use people with convictions for violence in their undercover crime reporting; [b] if they would still not ask those working undercover for them what methods they used - especially in light of the judge in the counterfeiting trial saying the BBC shouldn't have allowed them to operate without effective scrutiny; [c] when exactly the BBC first became aware of the murder trial, and when [or if] the men's involvement with the BBC was first publicly acknowledged; and [d] whether the BBC would still go ahead and broadcast a programme if such a thing were to happen again now.

This Daily Mail story is causing a bad smell around the BBC, fairly or unfairly, but I think that's as far as can be gone with this...[edit] except for pursuing the BBC over those questions. 

BBC News

I

It's good that Matt Wiessler, the designer scapegoated by the BBC in the Martin Bashir/Princess Diana Panorama scandal, has finally received compensation [some £750,000 apparently] 'from the BBC', though it appears as if every penny of it will actually be paid by the licence fee payer. 

The licence fee payer has already forked out £1.5 million for the Dyson review into the scandal, and paid out about £1.5 million to a charity chosen by the Royal Family because of the Bashir scandal, and looks set to compensate former royal nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke over smears spread about her by Mr Bashir.

II

Meanwhile, BBC DG Tim Davie has been talking again, this time telling a leadership conference that he feels 'exhausted' by the 'pathetic' flapping of some who 'surround' him, and he doesn't want them around him. [Are they among those who have recently departed, or will be soon departing?]

Daily, we are on the front pages of the papers. You have to judge where something is serious, and it’s not necessarily what’s the biggest press headline. I might get an email now that’s genuinely a problem that hasn’t got any press. 

You don’t want to surround yourself with people who flap and generate all this, ‘Oh it’s really serious.’ It’s not. I’m exhausted by all of that and I find it slightly pathetic. Sorry if that sounds nasty. 

In public-eye jobs we’re in the middle of the so-called culture wars and navigating that in my life is huge, in terms of what’s progressive versus what’s woke. We’re constantly being dragged around on this.

I feel some sad violin music is needed for poor Tim, whilst we wonder what he means by 'navigating' in terms of 'what's progressive versus what's woke'.

 

III

Talking of which, according to The Daily Mail the BBC is running its own in-house training about 'unconscious bias', warning against 'micro-incivilities', and that kind of rubbish. 

What struck me here is that the Mail says it has been pursuing the BBC over this through FOI requests and the BBC has refused to answer them twice before being forced to reveal the information by the Information Commissioner's Office. 

Woke or otherwise, that's very BBC.

Another Tale of Two Headlines

 

Here's a cryptic BBC headline: 

Fire breaks out at asylum-seekers barracks

What does that mean? The use of the passive tense suggests it could have been accidental (an unattended chip pan, some faulty wiring). But it's ambiguous and could also mean it had been started deliberately. But if the latter, by whom? By racist local residents attacking the asylum seekers maybe? Or by the asylum seekers themselves?

Ah, read on!...

"The fire began [passive tense again] after "upset" residents "caused a bit of a ruckus in the dining room", a charity said."

So it was the asylum seekers ("residents"). But a supportive charity says they were "upset" and it was only "a bit of a ruckus", so no big deal by the sounds of it:

Contrast that with this far more instantly understandable Daily Mail headline:

Another contrast is that the BBC uses the term "asylum seeker" while the Mail used "migrants".

Different agenda I suppose.

Frogs? Or fuzzy-wuzzies?

 

Further to this post: 

Are we really DOOMED to accept trigger warnings for Dad's Army on BBC Two?

The BBC Press Office has reacted to The Sun's take on the story:

It's the Daily Mail's take that puzzles me though, to which the BBC didn't respond. I'm finding it hard to accept that even the BBC would slap a trigger warning on because of "frogs". As we assumed at the time, it was surely "fuzzy-wuzzies" to describe Sudanese fighters that got that warning put on? Where did the Mail get the idea that it was "frogs"?

Ah, I see the BBC is reacting to the Mail too:

I think we can guess what they'll be telling them!

There's no need for such trigger warnings regardless. That remains the main point here.

Of BBC Three, owls, and the BBC badly misreading their new youth target audience

 

According to research quoted by The Daily Mail from Enders Analysis (the latter often cited and invited for interview by the BBC), the decision made by the great strategic brains of half a dozen years or so ago at the BBC to move BBC Three online resulted in the station collapsing by 89% in terms of viewing minutes. 

Why? Because its target youth audience, whenever it deigns to watch such things, still prefers watching 'linear TV' to watching it online.

The BBC assumed otherwise, and - as a result - the intended under-35 audience slumped into a great depression. 

I'm sure no one will ever be held to account for the decision, especially if it's as bad as the Daily Mail says it is.

It must be bad because Tim Davie is said to be about to reverse it. 

The Mail also report features the usual snooty BBC spokesman giving an especially sniffy, 'everything in the garden is rosy' response. It won't only be owls hereabouts who find it a hoot.

Lazy and glib?

Now that there’s Guido, the Daily Mail and many more, does ITBB have a right to exist?  I don’t watch the Beeb very much these days and neither does Craig. Where’s that furlough scheme when you need it?.

Still, fancy Panorama featuring the daughter of obsessive BDS dogmatist Brian Eno without identifying her as such. I misread her name as ‘Trial’ (and error) 

“Irial Eno, was a ‘doctor working with Covid patients’ who has ‘decided to speak out’. She said ‘I feel really angry at the Government’.”

Smoulder away, Dr Trial but public opinion is gradually shifting away from the left and almost imperceptibly creeping towards, I don’t know - let’s call it ‘reason’.  The BBC’s buttresses are crumbling without much help from the likes of us. 

But then, just because you feature the opinions of leftist dogmatists it doesn’t mean you ARE one. Maybe the BBC was just testing? To see if anyone was watching?

Oliver Dowden is on the case. A bit late in the day, but: Coronavirus: Minister Oliver Dowden warns BBC about ‘bias’ after Panorama story

“In his letter Mr Dowden said that he was sure Lord Hall “will agree that at a time of heightened risk of misinformation and disinformation, it is more important than ever that the BBC upholds the values and standards we all expect”.

The BBC has its story prepared. Oven ready.

“Monday night’s Panorama was a rigorous, properly sourced investigation into the procurement and supply of PPE, which posed serious questions for the Government. It also included contributions from health professionals about their frontline experience. 

“The programme spoke to a range of interviewees, including public health policy experts, and those involved in the supply of PPE. Where it was relevant, we indicated that they had been vocally critical of the Government. 

“Some of those interviewed are members of a political party and some are not. We believe that if the doctors featured in Panorama feel their lives are at risk due to lack of proper PPE it is valid, and indeed in the public interest, for them to reflect on that experience, regardless of the political views they may or may not hold.”

This looks like the classic defence that goes: “Never mind the source because we all know this is the kind of thing that goes on.” 

I’ve heard that one before and it’s not really good enough. It’s lazy and glib. ’Posing serious questions’ is not very difficult. Any lazy hack could do that, but listening to, examining, and if necessary debunking the answers (or excuses) is where investigative journalism starts. 

I will level with you. I didn’t watch the programme, so do tell me; when the programme spoke to ‘those involved in the supply of PPE’ did they follow up? 

Gotcha journalism?

The Guardian's 'exclusive' yesterday that Robert Jenrick MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government, "is facing questions" after visiting his elderly parents house is itself facing questions.

The Times's Matt Chorley responded to it by writing:

A story which doesn’t even survive four pars. There are plenty of people who would be in real trouble, including some of my own family, if relatives didn’t travel to leave food/medicine on the doorstep. Credit to Robert Jenrick for looking after his parents.

And the BBC's Andrew Neil commented:

This Guardian story kills itself by para four. So why publish at all?

Mr Jenrick himself tweeted this yesterday:

For clarity - my parents asked me to deliver some essentials - including medicines. They are both self-isolating due to age and my father's medical condition and I respected social distancing rules. 

Meanwhile, today came this tweet from Stephen Canning:

I think the even funnier thing is the Daily Mail trying to run the same story the next day and claiming it’s an exclusive.

The Daily Mail seems to think he shouldn't live with his wife and children if he works as a cabinet minister in London. 

I first heard about the story while listening to Radio 3's Breakfast this morning. The usual intrusive, BBC-wide news bulletin at 8 o'clock ran the story like this:

Meanwhile, as the Government's again urged people to stay at home, a cabinet minister's had to defend his movements. The Daily Mail reports that Robert Jenrick went from London to his house in Herefordshire after Government guidance said that travel to second homes was not essential. In a statement the Communities Secretary said that he'd been in London on ministerial duties but left once he was able to work from his family home where his wife and children were.

The BBC is going with the Daily Mail's main angle interestingly, and ignoring the Guardian's angle (which that paper is, bizarrely, still sticking with). Presumably, the BBC accepts that the Guardian's angle is untenable.

I could be misunderstanding this story, but if Mr Jenrick's family lives in this 'second home' and he's an essential worker, why is it wrong that he travels back home to them? Surely that angle is just as untenable, as Mr Jenrick seems to have obeyed every one of the Government's own guidelines here.

Update: The title of the post has been amended. And I quite clearly was misunderstanding this story - see comments below. 

No ministers for 'Newsnight'?

According to a thinly-sourced piece in The Mail on Sunday, the Government intends to boycott Newsnight over the appointment of Lewis Goodall because of his "aggressively anti-Tory comments on social media". If that proves to be the case, then the Government will be boycotting two flagship BBC current affairs programmes. Wonder what Lewis will tweet about this? 

OMG

I nearly missed this, but here's another 'in a nutshell' revelation from John Humphrys's post-BBC book: 

Sarah Montague "gave him a hard time" for reading The Daily Mail. 

There but for the Grace of the BBC...

Talking of news about the BBC, the Mail on Sunday had a rum story today headlined Left-wing 're-education camp' is accused of training journalists to flood the BBC's airwaves with pro-Corbyn commentators. 

The MoS reports that a far-left organisation called the New Economy Organisers Network (Neon) - seemingly a pro-Corbyn equivalent of Common Purpose - is training Corbynista pundits to appear on the media.

"When they appear," the MoS says, "they rail against the ‘mainstream media’ and traditional capitalism, and are taught how to ‘swerve’ difficult questions". 

So far, so good for Neon it seems. They are getting lots and lots of invites.

And the intriguing thing, for the purposes of this blog, is that the bulk of those invites have come from the BBC.

Neon pundits have made more than 60 appearances on BBC shows this year alone.

One of them is Grace Blakeley, who many of us will have seen many times already on the BBC.

The disappointing thing about the MoS article is that it only names Grace Blakely. I'm intrigued to know who the rest are.

It looks as if the Tories aren't happy about it. "Last night, the BBC faced calls from Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss to explain why it was seemingly co-operating with Neon’s propaganda push", the MoS says. The article contains a couple of juicy quotes too:

Liz Truss: The BBC is of course right to seek a balance of views. However, it should not be willingly or unwillingly taking part in a concerted anti- capitalism campaign worthy of George Orwell’s 1984 to poison people against traditional free-market economics. It’s not as if the Corporation can be unaware as these commentators go on Twitter afterwards to celebrate their appearance. 

'A Government source': The BBC is giving a platform to hard-Left activists posing as journalists and commentators groomed by their very own re-education camp. If they ditched these hateful idealogues, they might be able to produce better quality, balanced shows.

If anyone comes across more names of Neon pundits, please let us know. Is Our Ash one?

Dear Jeremy, thank you very much. Love, Hamas.

I know, I know, it’s the OMG Daily Mail, but I wonder if anyone else will pick up this story. BBC?

Palestinian terror group Hamas THANKS Jeremy Corbyn for his support: Militants ‘salute’ Labour leader online after he sent message to anti-Israel rally last weekend 

In a carefully worded statement issued this evening, the militant organisation, whose armed wing is responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians, ‘saluted’ the Labour leader after he sent a message to a major anti-Israel rally in London last weekend.

That 'rally' was an Israel-bashing hatefest, starring Corbyn, Diane Abbott and Ahed “From the River To The Sea” Tamimi.

Hamas' statement in full:
‘We have received with great respect and appreciation the solidarity message sent by the British Labor Party Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to the participants in the mass rally that took place in central London last Saturday in commemoration of the 71st anniversary of Nakba. 

'In his message, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn condemned the Israeli occupation forces' shooting at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza who were calling for their rights to be recognized. He stressed that peace cannot be achieved with the continued illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories. 

'This message expresses support and solidarity with the Palestinian people and their inalienable rights to freedom, independence and self-determination. It also condemns the ongoing occupation and its crimes against our people, and reflects an advanced moral and political position worthy of all praise and thanks. 

'We also salute Mr. Jeremy Corbyn for his principled position in rejecting the so-called Trump Plan for the Middle East or the "Deal of the Century" if it was based on erasing Palestinian rights, primarily the right to an independent state. 

'On this occasion we emphasize that no peace plan can succeed at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian people, that the Palestinians will not allow this deal to pass, and that it will be doomed to failure. 

'We also call on the current British government to stop supporting the Israeli occupation state and to listen to the voice of wisdom and reason and adopt policies in support of the Palestinian legitimate rights that will lead to stability in this vitally important and highly turbulent region.'

Diane Abbott, that Mojito, the Daily Mail and the BBC

Having a cheeky Cuban-cocktail-in-a-can on a London Overground train on a hot afternoon isn't much of crime, even if it actually is a crime and the person committing it is the country's Shadow Home Secretary. 

In my book, it's on a par with doing 72 mph on the motorway (something, of course, I don't actually do). 

Some nice person, however, took a photo of Diane Abbott lost in thought whilst looking at her mobile phone and sipping on an M&S Mojito, and The Sun then splashed with it. 

Some said, she's breaking the law by flouting Transport For London's alcohol ban, and, OMG, she's drinking at 1 pm in the afternoon, and we expect better from our politicians. 

Others said, well, it's no big deal and a perfectly understandable thing to do on a hot afternoon. 

Of course, the usual partisans went up-in-arms, smiting their enemies on Twitter (etc). Ms Abbott's most intense critics are being intense about it and her Corbynista defenders are raging with all the fury of the psalmist in the Old Testament at her critics. 

Tellingly, the media has also divided over its reporting of this.

Compare, say, the Daily Mail with the BBC News website. One inclines against Ms. Abbott, the other inclines in favour of Ms. Abbott. Guess which does which!

That said, the Daily Mail, actually achieves balance in terms of the number of reactions it quotes, with four people criticising her and four people defending her. The BBC, in contrast, quotes just two people - both defending her.

The Daily Mail article goes on to detail her previous 'gaffes', while the BBC article doesn't.

Instead the BBC goes on to not-so-subtly suggest that Boris Johnson's alcohol ban wasn't a great idea:

The alcohol ban was introduced by the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, in an attempt to tackle unruly behaviour on the TfL network. 

It was described by union leaders as "half-baked". 

On 31 May 2008 - a day before the alcohol ban came into place - revellers enjoyed a "cocktail party" on parts of the London Underground, mainly on the Circle Line. 

Within the first five months of the ban being enforced, a BBC investigation found that British Transport Police spoke to 35 people who had been seen drinking alcohol on the Tube. 

However, none of those incidents was recorded as a criminal offence. 

The case for the defence rests, m'lud.  

"We're running a piece tomorrow about the co-stars of the show"

There's a BBC connection to this story, but it's mainly about the Scottish Mail on Sunday. It concerns the famous pug-owning Count Dankula, and a series of messages he received from a SMoS reporter yesterday:

Ah, Georgia! Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, would it?

And here's the headline that emerged this morning!:

Maybe Georgia should team up with John Sweeney.

Where's Max?

One of the examples of BBC bias used by Stephen Glover in his recent column I say this in sadness, but unless the BBC gets its act together it may not be here in 15 years was the BBC's Max Mosley coverage (or the lack of it):

The third example of bias came yesterday after the Mail revealed how Max Mosley supported the revoltingly racist far-Right in the early Sixties, and apparently concealed this fact when successfully suing the now defunct News of the World in 2008 for describing his orgy as Nazi-themed. 

You'd have thought this was meat and drink for the Beeb, especially after Channel Four News brilliantly eviscerated Mosley. But for several hours it was shtum. When Labour announced it wouldn't be accepting more money from Mosley, the BBC carried a brief story on its website, but still ignored it on its news bulletins. 

Was it fear of the tycoon that held Auntie back? Or was she unwilling to pick up the story because it had originated in the Mail, which her left-leaning journalists regard with suspicion? Either way, it was another instance of disgracefully inept journalism.

Well, today, Labour's shadow chancellor John McDonnell made life very difficult for Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson over Max Mosley by telling Sky News that Mr. Watson should consider returning Mr. Mosley's £540,000 donation - the headline for which could be: Labour Shadow Chancellor Chucks Labour Deputy Leader Under a Bus over Max Mosley Racism Claims. 

It's obviously a newsworthy political story, and even the Guardian is now reporting it in great detail. But so far the BBC is staying shtum, again. 

Will they report it? And if they do, how will they report it? And (if they bury it in the deeper recesses of the BBC News website) will anyone notice?

OMG

Interesting times. 

Nick Robinson has just tweeted a plug to his Mail on Sunday piece, From robots stealing jobs, to mob rule online – and even what it means to be a man or woman, 2018 will be a year of instability and uncertainty. And our so-called leaders have never been more impotent. 

Can you guess the response he's got from the outrage chamber on Twitter? 

Well, it can be summed up in just one phrase: "Oh. My. God. The Daily Mail!!!" 

Here's a flavour:

• You are using #BBC account to promote Daily Mail. Inappropriate use of Public funds. Also trust in #BBC erodes with your actions. 
• What on earth are you doing writing for the Mail?
• Don't work for the Mail.
• Shocking misjudgement to write for this vile rag.
• Too much hatred, anger and intolerance - a large part of which has been fueled by the"Mails" - what on earth are you doing writing for that appalling group - very disappointing. 
• Excellent article: just a shame it was in the Mail
• I cannot believe you write for that hate rag...thought you were better than that.
• I used to respect you. But the Daily Heil? Shame on you.

OMG,  the Daily Mail!!!

*******

I was told at school that pointing is rude

Anyhow, here's part of Nick's 'opinion piece'/'impartial take' (the bit on Brexit and immigration):

Social attitudes are changing not just the roles of men and women but the very definition of what is a man or a woman. Much of this change has liberated millions from misery, poverty and oppression. Very little of it is, though, within the grasp of those who are theoretically ‘in power’. Take migration, and the flood of humanity that now seems perpetually on the move. 

A new forecast suggests that the number of migrants attempting to settle in Europe each year could treble by the end of the century based on current climate trends alone. It is against this backdrop that in 2018 we will have to debate the design of our new post-Brexit immigration system. 

The principles won’t be hard for most to agree to – an end to freedom of movement, open borders for those with the skills we need and new curbs on those with low skills. 

The questions will begin when we must ask what we mean by low skilled – does it include the barista who knows how you like your morning coffee or the waitress in your local pizza place, or what about the carers who look after your mum and dad? 

It will all be so much more complex and so much more important than the divisive and often preposterous row about the colour of our passports. 

Well yes, but if you frame it like that in advance - raising the question of the value of low-skilled immigrants in emotive language about "your mum and dad" - doesn't that already tilt the question in a pro-immigration direction?

Couldn't other questions be at the forefront of the BBC's collective mind, such as the impact of low-skilled immigrants on our own low-skilled population?

The choice of questions to prioritise can suggest bias, can't it Nick?

As for the bit about "the divisive and often preposterous row about the colour of our passports", well, you can read that both ways as far as who was being 'preposterous' over that, but it does betray, doesn't it (despite Nick's attempt to be non-committal), a telling disinterest in something that does matter to many Leave voters who deeply value the UK's sovereignty?

Breaking news

Really, it's sometimes difficult to know what to make of media reporting these days. 

The horrific news that a female UK diplomat has been murdered in Lebanon is being widely reported, but different news outlets are reporting or, in some cases not reporting, different aspects of the story.

You read the Sky and ITV websites and they report speculation about a sexual motive.

You then read the BBC website and they don't report speculation about a sexual motive. 

And then you turn to Mail Online and their headline is British female embassy worker is found dead in Beirut after being 'raped, strangled and dumped by the side of a motorway'. 

Obviously, the BBC is aware of this speculation of a sexual motive for the murder but is choosing not to report it. 

Is the BBC suppressing an angle to the story that they should be reporting, or is the BBC exercising restraint and behaving responsibly in not reporting that angle until it becomes more than mere speculation?

Or could the BBC be holding back, awaiting news about who murdered Rebecca Dykes, before they report that angle?

Partial reporting

News in The Mail on Sunday that a Conservative MP has been sent death threats and his pregnant wife threatened after the MP heckled Jeremy Corbyn at Prime Minister's Question Time has spread into other newspapers' reporting of Mrs May's condemnation of threats and abuses against MPs. The top comment under that MoS report reads, "Funny how the likes of the BBC don't report this." When I read the lead story on the BBC News website this morning, I won't be derailed on Brexit - May, I noticed that the subheading reads 'Death threats' and thought, 'Well, maybe the BBC has reported this after all'. But alas no. Unlike, say the Telegraph or the Independent (both of which report the MoS's story whilst reporting Mrs May's comments), the BBC only focuses on the disgusting threats against anti-Brexit Conservative parliamentarians. 

Getting it wrong again

It's an old theme but the latest variation on it is well worth hearing: Stephen Glover's Daily Mail piece headlined 'How the Mail got it right on Romanian and Bulgarian migration and the BBC got it so wrong – and deceived Britain'. It's spot on and thoroughly damning.

The shocking thing about it, looking back, is that the BBC didn't just "get it so wrong" and "deceive Britain" for the first time here. They simply replayed almost note-for-note their earlier 'mistakes and deceptions' from the post-2004 mass influx from Eastern Europe. They clearly refuse to learn.

Back in the early 2000s we had reports such at that by the BBC's Dominic Casciani giving credence to claims that the influx from Eastern Europe after the borders opened in 2004 would be much smaller than the 'hype' suggested - and by 'hype' he specifically meant Migration Watch's claims. In the end Migration Watch proved right and the official UK projections proved wildly, spectacularly wrong. 

So you would have thought that the BBC would have learned its lesson by the time January 2014 came and the gates were opened to Romanians and Bulgarians, but no, no such lesson had been learned. 

The BBC did it all over again. 

They repeatedly and doggedly played down the likely numbers, with BBC reporters (such as Phil Mackie and Mark Lowen) not just reporting others saying that the numbers would be much less than Migration Watch and UKIP were predicting but stating themselves that they (as BBC reporters) didn't see any evidence that large numbers would be coming to the UK.

And when a small, unexpected dip in the numbers was reported in May 2014, the BBC splashed the story, with Eddie Mair talking of "all the hype" about the numbers, and Mark Easton saying of the "flood" that "if anything, the reverse" was happening, and Nick Robinson opining, "Well, well, well. So much for those predictions of a flood of immigrants coming from Romania and Bulgaria once the door to the UK was opened - ie after visa restrictions were removed on 1 January this year!" and crowing, "However, today the questions will be for UKIP who warned of a flood of new immigrants from the two countries". 

And what has happened ever since has been more and more data on the actual numbers and less and less BBC reporting of them. The OBS reported that there are now 413,000 Romanians and Bulgarians in the United Kingdom, equivalent to the population of Bristol, over whom some 263,000 or so came after January 2014. 

Yet again, the previous Labour government projection of 13,000 a year (the then Labour government's estimate) and he more recent NIESR's guess of 21,000 a year were shown to have been complete rubbish. Even Migration Watch's prediction of 50,000 a year now looks like an underestimate. UKIP looks likely to come closest with their much-derided prediction of 350,000-400,000 over five years. 

Why would the BBC get it so badly wrong not once but twice? 

To paraphrase Marx: History repeats itself, first time as terrible, biased reporting, second time also as terrible, biased reporting. 

Is there any other explanation for this?

And did they report the latest figures? Well, I've seen reports on the OBS's figures from everyone from the Guardian to the Daily Mail, from Sky News to Xinhua, from the Times to the Irish Times but I can find nothing on the BBC News website on the story. 

As far as I can see the BBC has studiously ignored the story, yet again.

Once again the BBC has betrayed its reporting responsibilities by failing to follow through on a story it massively hyped and got badly wrong. The BBC should be reporting these figures and pointing out who got it right and who got it wrong. 

There's no good reason why the Corporation isn't doing so, is there?