The BBC moves on swiftly. It most certainly annoyed Cameron’s humiliation over Juncker and will give Labour one more chance today to rub as much salt into the wounds as possible. But the BBC is keen to allow Germans such as Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble to suggest that the UK can now trust Merkel to be more sympathetic to our aims. He was on Today this morning being given a very sympathetic hearing so that his siren voice could add to that chorus of those europhiles around Cameron who seek to delude us that things will somehow, magically, be different the next time the UK seeks to stop “the project” The BBC is deeply committed to the EU and plays a very clever and treacherous game.


I am sure you will have seen this from the BBC.

Islamist militant group Isis has said it is establishing a caliphate, or Islamic state, on the territories it controls in Iraq and Syria. It also proclaimed the group’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as caliph and “leader for Muslims everywhere”. Setting up a caliphate ruled by the strict Islamic law has long been a goal of many jihadists.

This suggests that only Jihadists want to see a global caliphate but surely this is not quite the case. Many Islamic scholars around the world also advance the idea of a caliphate, it’s just that the Jihadists are the cutting edge to achieve this. I wish the BBC was not so dhimmified that it fails to confront the core dynamic behind Islam – Dar al Harb.

Revealing ‘Ghastly Truths’ About Israel?



The BBC has a new series, The Honourable Woman, starting next Thursday.

It is about a Jewish woman on a one woman peace mission to the Middle East.  Wonder who the villains will be.


Here’s the Telegraph’s take:

Gyllenhaal plays Nessa Stein, a British citizen but an Israeli Jew by origin, whose father– a Zionist gunrunner – was murdered in front of her when she was a child. She has inherited his ill-gotten fortune and used it to create a foundation that forges relationships between Israel and Palestine. When we first see Nessa, she announces a contract to lay fibre-optic cables in the West Bank, but the ghosts of the past haunt her and the internecine plot shows that her father’s murderous legacy is a curse.

Another daunting aspect of The Honourable Woman was its subject matter, bound to provoke strong reactions. “[The Israel-Palestine question] is so polarising because everyone has such a tight grip on their feelings. Throughout the eight hours we veer from one way to another and people will say, ‘Oh my God, they are being totally pro-Israeli or totally pro-Palestinian.’ But because the piece has been written with such compassion, I hope people will loosen their grip on either side.”

This may sound naive but Gyllenhaal is aware that a few hours of drama is unlikely to aid the peace process and she was sensitive to the intransigence of the situation throughout filming.



Here’s the Guardian’s:

“It’s about Israel and Palestine, refracted through the prism of a family,” Blick explains, fully aware that this sounds like a tough sell. He reveals that he took the idea to Janice Hadlow, the controller of BBC2, who made two recommendations. “She said, ‘Not too much sand’, by which she meant, ‘Make it make sense to a UK audience,’” Blick says. And the other? “The other was, ‘Don’t kill too many children…’” he says, laughing.

It casts Gyllenhaal as Nessa Stein, a British businesswoman with a bird’s-eye view of the intractable conflict in the Middle East. Her father’s company sold munitions; Stein, though, wants it be a force for good, and has moved the company into telecommunications. It’s an eight-part thriller that finds as much drama in affluent London as it does in the West Bank, and articulates the conflict there in personal as well as political terms. It travels back and forth in time, revealing ghastly truths in a beguilingly casual way.



I am certain that it would be foolish to prejudge the BBC and the arts world when it comes to creating the ‘ghastly truth’ about Israel and the Palestinians, and all without killing ‘too many children’….based upon the nefarious activities of a Zionist father who flooded the Middle East with arms, a daughter who wants to right his ‘wrongs’, and a murdered Palestinian businessman.

Any bets there will be a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing himself up in a restaurant,  ‘driven’ to do the deed by the oppressive and vicious illegal occupation of the West Bank by the nazi-like, Zionist IDF.






Red Dawn



The BBC’s early morning Labour Party Indoctrination broadcast, Wake Up To Money, is always worth a visit if you need a good laugh, the two usual presenters offering us a resolutely unusual world view….fortunately most of the guests, with some exceptions, talk a lot of sense…which is then completely ignored by the dynamic duo in charge.

Tuesday was an exception (34 mins) when the guest was brought in to bolster the BBC’s pro-HS2 stance and we had a bit of a love-in and not many hard questions about HS3, the newly proposed East/West high speed line.  As the guest, Sim Harris from Rail News, is a hardened advocate of HS2 we were hardly likely to get a reasoned and measured line from him….as his own thoughts on objectors to HS2 show.



WUTM has always been highly dismissive of the government’s claims about job creation and an improving economy, pouring large amounts of cold water, scorn and derision upon any ‘good news’….for instance still telling us we narrowly missed a triple dip recession even after we knew that there had not even been a double dip recession.


How different when it suits though.  On Wednesday the ‘Living Wage Commision’ pronounced that the government must ensure everyone gets a pay rise to a level determined by the LWC.

WUTM was doing a bit of cheerleading on Wednesday morning on their behalf. (05:47)

Some businessmen were brought in to tell us their thoughts…unsurprisingly they suggested it depended upon the state of the economy whereupon the BBC’s Adam Parsons leapt into action and said:

‘But we’re out of recession, there comes a time when we can’t keep saying we’re barely out of a recession…. because we are out of recession, there is growth’

Funny that the usual refrain  on the programme is just how ‘fragile’ the economy is…heard them say it several times this week.

Mickey Clark, the other presenter, added his thoughts and stated that we could afford to pay a living wage because the ‘jobs situation is so vibrant now’.

This is the same Mickey Clark who consistently, day in, day out, tells us that we can’t trust the government figures, that the jobs created are rubbish being all part time, ZHC or self employed, or worthless jobs like gardeners or painters.


How different when it suits.  Suddenly the economy is booming and the jobs market is vibrant and healthy.


And just who or what is the Living Wage Commission?  You might have thought from the way the BBC introduces it that it is an official government body….but it isn’t….it’s just the usual left wing pressure group campaigning for issues close to Labour’s heart.

The Church heads it, along with various charity leading lights, the head of the TUC, a Unison member, and one possible ‘righty’ from the British Chamber of Commerce.


The ‘Living Wage’ is of course a central Labour Party policy.


Good of the BBC to be so obliging in pushing the Labour Party agenda so discreetly.










The Royal Wheedle

Prince Charles


Listening to BBC radio news I was outraged and astonished to hear Charlie boy had been bending the ear of those trusty yeoman charged with keeping HMS Britain on an even keel…the politicians.

The BBC revealed that David Blunkett told them that Charlie had been campaigning for more Grammar schools.

Imagine my surprise when looking at the Telegraph we find a different emphasis, or rather, a more honest report:

Prince Charles ‘consorted with Labour on climate change and grammar schools’

Former ministers reveal the Prince of Wales wanted tougher policies on climate change and the expansion of grammar schools


The BBC’s effort is more circumspect:

Prince ‘wanted more grammar schools’

The Prince of Wales tried to influence government decisions in areas including grammar schools expansion and GM crops, former Labour cabinet ministers reveal.



Why does the BBC dodge around the climate change part?  Could it be that the liberal BBC sees grammar schools as divisive and elitist whilst tougher policies on climate change meets with its approval and so a careful and less critical approach to Charlie boy’s  advocacy of this particular policy is warranted?

When climate change is one of the most contentious issues (despite the BBC trying to quash all debate) and the policies introduced to deal with the ‘problem’ are set to cost this country an ever increasing fortune surely the fact that Charlie has been putting pressure on government, with the willing co-operation of the Labour environment minister of the time, should be the headline news not grammar schools.

The BBC doesn’t want to stir up a fuss about climate and govenrment policies because it doesn’t want that whole can of worms opened up again and yet more doubts raised in the Public’s minds about what is being forced upon them.


The BBC  mentions climate but only as a minor point after complementary medicine…..

He discussed complementary medicine and climate with other Labour ministers.


and then again a long way down the report…and even then concentrates on GM crops:

Former environment minister Michael Meacher recalled that he and the Prince “would consort together quietly” to affect policy on climate change and genetically modified crops.

He said they worked together “to try and ensure that we increased our influence within government”.

“I knew that he largely agreed with me and he knew that I largely agreed with him,” said Mr Meacher. “We were together in trying to persuade Tony Blair to change course.”

Asked if there might be a constitutional problem in the Prince taking a political opinion, Mr Meacher replied: “Well, over GM I suppose you could well say that. Maybe he was pushing it a bit. I was delighted, of course.”

Global Propaganda…Hidden Messages



The Mail reports:

BBC spends £500k to ask 33,000 Asians 5,000 miles from UK what they think of climate change: Corporation savaged for ‘astonishing’ campaign survey on global warming

The BBC has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money asking 33,000 people in Asian countries how climate change is affecting them.

The £519,000 campaigning survey by little-known BBC Media Action is designed to persuade the world to adopt more hard-line policies to combat global warming.

It was immediately condemned yesterday as a flagrant abuse of the Corporation’s rules on impartiality and ‘a spectacular waste of money’ by a top academic expert.




BBC Media Action used to be called the BBC World Service Trust… is designed to train journalists and broadcasters in foreign countires how to effectivekly use the media to promote a particular message…in this case the cause and the message has been decided by the BBC itself…global warming and how it must be reacted to.

Here is the blurb from the old World Service Trust that shows how they use the Media, including inserting subliminal messages into drama and other non-documentary programming, to get across a message in order to change attitudes and perceptions and then behaviour…all very Big Brother:


BBC World Service Trust(where the BBC does not think you are looking…so they print the truth):


  • ‘Media’ matters because it underpins how societies respond to the problems they face. This makes media not only relevant to the most urgent problems of poverty and marginalisation – it makes it critical to solutions designed to address them.
  • It matters too because it is a critical part of strategies to [alter and control behaviour.]
  • The media, and increasingly new technologies, is increasingly how humans communicate with each other.
  • How well we communicate with each other has a good deal to do with how successful we’re likely to be in confronting the massive problems we face (and the masses.)

Making informed choices

  • Media enables people to access information on issues that shape their lives, without which they cannot make choices.
  • Media enables people to hold their governments to account and provides a critical check on government corruption
  • Media and communication enables people and communities to understand, debate and reach decisions on the issues that confront them

Media and communication can be immense and powerful instruments for change and empowerment in society

  • Media can be an important part of the solution to development challenges. But they can also be a part of the problem
  • Media can be used as instruments of oppression, manipulation and hate
  • Truth can be distorted as well as illuminated, malpractice hidden as well as revealed.
  • The character of a country’s media tends to determine the character of a country’s democracy and society. It underpins how people learn, understand and shape change.

Engaging at high levels to gain influence:

  • Our initiatives and corresponding audience research seek to engage at four different ‘levels’:
  • The sector level with policy and decision-makers
  • The organisation level with state, commercial and not-for-profit entities
  • The practitioner level with professionals and opinion leaders; and
  • The individual level with various target audiences

75-250 million people across Africa will face water shortages
Crop yields may increase by 20% in East and Southeast Asia, but decrease by up to 30% in Central and South Asia
Agriculture fed by rainfall could drop by 50% in some parts of Africa
20-30% of all plant and animal species will be at increased risk of extinction
Glaciers and snow cover will decline, reducing water availability in countries supplied by melt water
Africa is likely to be the continent most vulnerable to climate change.

Our approach
It is essential that people in developing countries receive accurate information about climate change and other environmental changes such as deforestation, soil erosion and pollution

In India, we worked in partnership with national and international NGOs to mobilise public opinion around the environment by improving the media’s coverage of the environmental issues, and helping environmental activists communicate their messages more effectively
In the Eastern Caribbean, we worked in partnership with media professionals, local authorities, and national and international NGOs to build public awareness of climate change and the need for national and regional environmental policies

Journalists learned how to better connect with their audiences by explaining the impact of these key environmental issues on their lives.
Senior editors also worked with international specialists to develop strategies for moving environmental issues up the news agenda.

The workshops covered:

  • How corporate interests and party politics shape environmental news coverage
  • The ethics of journalism – including objectivity and reporting a plurality of views
  • Finding and authenticating sources
  • The process of designing a mass media programme or campaign begins with a ‘messaging workshop’, where the results of formative research are analysed to produce a ‘messaging brief’. The brief describes which messages need to be communicated to achieve key behaviour change.
  • Identify formats
  • The next step is to find out which formats – drama, discussion programmes, public service announcements – can be most effectively used to deliver information and stimulate discussion.

Drama can be a powerful mechanism for development. It can build an emotional connection with target audiences over a period of time, while modelling situations or behaviours.

Viewers or listeners become attached to characters and share in their experiences, sometimes discussing them with people around them, reflecting on their situations and actions and how they might respond if it were them.
Reinforcing the message
In building a campaign we generally use a range of formats, because they cross-promote one another and reinforce messages. Additional materials – such as posters and comics – may also be used to echo the messages and stories conveyed by other media outputs.





This is from BBC Media Action…all a bit ironic, all that talk of ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘holding power to account’,  when the BBC itself closes down debate in the UK and does huge damage to the democratic political processes of this country:


Our work on Governance and rights

BBC Media Action is using media and communication to provide access to information and create platforms to enable some of the poorest people in the world to take part in community life, and to hold those in power accountable. A focus on programming that directly engages people in debate and discussion also encourages communication across political, ethnic, religious and other divides in society.

We promote and protect high quality journalism and journalists around the world, supporting media institutions and strengthening public service broadcasting. We work with professional and citizen journalists where media freedom and freedom of speech are under threat, raising public awareness of and people’s ability to understand their rights.

BBC Not Ethical?



Does Peter Oborne not think the BBC is ethical, an organisation without a proper, working moral framework?  Does he think it needs such a firm grip at the tiller that Seb Coe couldn’t cope?


Lord Coe failed to instil a culture of honesty at Fifa. Why would he do better at the BBC?

This concerns Lord Coe’s record as head of Fifa’s Ethics Committee in 2007. Allegations of Fifa corruption were swirling around even then. BBC Panorama sought to question Lord Coe as to what the ethics committee, which he chaired, was doing about it. He refused to answer or even detail his responsibilities. I urge anybody wishing to assess the suitability of Lord Coe as Chairman of the BBC Trust to watch him avoiding questions about Fifa’s corruption scandal when Panorama’s Andrew Jennings door-stepped him.

Had Coe had adopted a more transparent and forceful approach as chair of the ethics committee, Fifa might not be in the mess it is in now. He clearly failed to instill a culture of honesty at Fifa, as the sordid tale of bribery associated with the later Qatari World Cup bid shows.

As the chairman of the BBC Trust, one of Lord Coe’s central obligations would be to set a moral framework at the BBC. His record at Fifa suggests that this would be beyond him.


BBC’s Selective Reporting


The BBC were all too keen to report the words of a couple of Polish politicians when they were insulting Cameron….the BBC is not so keen to report our very own, home grown ‘LibDem Friends of Palestine’s’ little homage to Ed Miliband (via Harry’s Place):

Lib Dem Friends of Palestine promote Atzmon

Even though Gilad Atzmon’s vile views have been widely condemned by anti-racists, including many pro-Palestinian activists, Lib Dem Friends of Palestine have promoted his racist attack on Ed Miliband’s speech to the LFI on their Facebook page.

As the Brits were expressing their disapproval of ‘Red Ed’ and his clumsy politics, the Labour leader found the time to socialise with the Jewish Lobby. The following is Ed Miliband’s speech to LFI (Labour Friends Of Israel), the same Zionist Lobby group that funded Blair’s government as it drove Britain into a criminal war in Iraq.

In his speech, Ed Miliband affirms his deep Zionist affiliation. The verdict on his reign is clear, Miliband should never have been the leader of a major British political party. He would have been better suited for a position as a local Rabbi or a part time job as an Israeli consular.

Britain doesn’t need a ‘Friend of Israel’ in Number 10 Downing Street. It needs friend of the British people, an ally of truth and justice and not a Zionist merchant. It needs a humanist and a universalist, instead of an imbecilic tribal operator who sees the world from a kosher perspective driven by the primacy of Jewish suffering.

The following speech serves to convince every proud Brit that the time is ripe to cleanse British public life of Zionists and Jerusalemites. Britain needs to search for its path back to Athens, ethics and the universal so that it can reminds itself its greatness and its role in Western civilization.



If that had been said about a Muslim leader of a political party the BBC would have been all over the story.



Ever wondered why your complaints to the BBC about their coverage of climate change and immigration go nowhere?


Bishop Hill could have the answer to one of those…and the BBC register of interests the other.


Here Bishop Hill brings us a leak, via the Guardian, of the result of a complaint to the BBC about Lord Lawson being ‘allowed’ to speak on the BBC  (Transcript of interview)

New BBC policy: right is wrong, wrong is right

Reviewing the broadcast, the BBC’s head of editorial complaints, Fraser Steel, took a dim view. “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research,” Steel says, “and I don’t believe this was made sufficiently clear to the audience …


So probably not much good complaining about the lack of contrasting views about the ‘science’ to Fraser Steel:

  • Fraser has overall responsibility for the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, which investigates complaints about serious breaches of editorial standards where the complainant is not satisfied with previous replies from the BBC, or where a complaint has been taken up by the external regulator Ofcom.
  • He is required to investigate impartially and independently. His findings are subject to appeal to the BBC Trust, but cannot be overruled by the BBC Executive.


Well worth his £90,000 remuneration.


Though he seems to think he’s not busy enough and has taken a second job…….



UK Immigration Services has over 15 years experience offering legal advice on UK immigration rules including assistance with UK citizenship applications.

  • We are members of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants(JCWI) who campaign for justice in immigration and asylum law.
  • Easy to find, 10 minutes from Heathrow Airport and 45 minutes from Central London.




How on earth can someone working for the BBC, especially as the head of the complaints department, many of which will be about the BBC’s immigration coverage, and also working for an immigration advisory and campaign group, be considered by any stretch of the imagination, impartial?

Apart from the fact that his decision on climate change is clearly ill-informed about the ‘science’ and therefore his judgement questionable, he clearly has a vested interest in keeping immigrants ‘flocking’ here and using the services of his company.



From The Mouths Of Grumpy Old men



Paxman has jumped ship and fired off a torpedo as he did so.

Newsnight is ‘made by 13-year-olds’, says Jeremy Paxman

The former host says his Conservative leanings made him a lone voice on the show as the younger producers wanted to change the world

The BBC’s flagship politics programme Newsnight is made by “13-year-olds”, its former host Jeremy Paxman has said, as he suggests his Conservative leanings made him a lone voice on the show.

Paxman, who made his last appearance on the flagship BBC programme earlier this month, said the makers of the programme were still young idealists, wanting to “change the world”.

He added his experience in politics had led him to be a “one-nation Tory”, with youthful idealism being a “fools’ errand”.

Paxman shared his opinion of modern politics, saying: “I am in favour of governments getting out of people’s lives. Particularly foreign government.

“The closer you can take decision-making to the people affected by those decisions, the better.”

Europe, he said, had been the source of “nothing but trouble for us”, and joked Belgium as a “pointless little country”.


I’m guessing the ‘Katz Kidz’ will be happy to see the back of the grumpy old man who was getting in the way of their project to change the world…their ‘fool’s errand’.

Who’d have guessed that the student-like lefties of the BBC had an agenda?  News to Owen Jones of course.

Interesting that even someone as senior as Paxman didn’t feel able to influence the news agenda and the groupthink at the BBC and speak out before in such strong terms whilst in the job.









If you hadn’t heard PMQs for yourself and only relied upon the BBC’s wash up of it afterwards you might not have realised that Miliband was completely steamrollered and failed utterly to make a dent in Cameron’s defence.

The central plank of Miliband’s attack was that the Cabinet Permanent Secretary, Gus O’Donnell, must have warned Cameron about the accusations against Coulson, Miliband also claimed that Coulson hadn’t been security vetted and if he had of been he would not have passed muster and therefore not have been given the job of communications director.

Miliband said there was now a very important question that the whole country wanted an answer to…did Sir Gus O’Donnell raise any concerns about Andy Coulson?

The BBC, in the shape of Andrew Neil and Nick Robinson, decided Cameron was lying when he said O’Donnell had not raised such concerns.

Robinson bizarrely tried to claim that Cameron’s defence, claiming that the revelations in Leveson cleared him, was similar to Blair trying to use the Hutton Inquiry to defend himself….as the BBC is of the opinion that the Hutton Inquiry was an Establishment whitewash presumably Robinson thinks Leveson is as well as Leveson certanly does clear Cameron.

Robinson went on to say Cameron had one problem…when Miliband asked him twice about whether there was civil service advice about Coulson Cameron insisted that that too had been raised in Leveson with Gus O’Donnell…Robinson says ‘I’ve checked and I can find no evidence that that was raised…what was unwise of the Prime Minister was to claim that Leveson cleared him of seems to me he didn’t.’


Unfortunately anyone with the ability to run a word search of the witness statement of Gus O’Donnell to Leveson would have found that he did clear Cameron:

Question 30 – Please set out in full for the inquiry details of your role, if any, in relation to the appointment by the Prime Minster of Andy Coulson to a post in No.10. Your account should include a full explanation of the basis on which you were asked to advise.  Mr Coulson was brought in as a special adviser to the Prime Minister.

I was not involved in the process of appointing Mr Coulson. Mr Coulson was cleared to SC (security clearance) level and was undergoing DV (developed vetting) clearance at the time of his resignation

Gus O’Donnell had no involvement in the appointment of Mr Coulson…pretty clear.

In other words Miliband’s attack, and Robinson’s ‘analysis’, is completely undermined by the actual evidence….Miliband himself claimed that O’Donnell had said nothing about Coulson at the Leveson Inquiry…clearly he did.


Robinson seems more intent on generating some sort of ‘scoop’ and whipping up a storm against Cameron rather than getting the real story…the real story which in fact provides a better scoop…..smashing Miliband’s attack.  Robinson is more concerned with supposition and speculation despite admitting he had no evidence to back that up…I paraphrase his words here:

Now it seems extremely likely, though I haven’t got the evidence, that civil servants said ‘you do know there are some questions about Coulson?’…it seems to me to be extremely likely that that happened..I don’t know we weren’t there…..’I’ve checked and I can find no evidence that that [Leveson asked O’Donnell about Coulson]  was raised…what was unwise of the Prime Minister was to claim that Leveson cleared him of this…it seems to me he didn’t.’


Pure speculation on Robinson’s part…if he’d bothered to check the statement he would have  realised that not only had O’Donnell cleared Cameron but that Coulson was vetted.

More excellent journalism from the impartial, accurate and accountable BBC.

Robinson goes on to attack ‘another interesting tactic he [cameron] uses’….Robinson says Cameron said he got the same assurances about hacking that the police and the PCC got…and neither had felt the need to act upon those, and therefore this shows he was right not to be concerned either.

Robinson says thatCaeron is muddling his times because at the time the allegations were made the police hadn’t looked into this.

Robinson claims that this undermines Cameron’s defence…however logically it reinforces it…If the police and PCC came to this late in the day, with more time to look at evidence and with possibly more evidence, and yet still decided there was no case to answer, then that backs up Cameron’s decision made at a time when there was even less evidence.


We then had a Labour Spad telling us that it was totally implausible that Coulson wasn’t vetted…and they have failed to answer why Coulson wasn’t subject to that degree of scrutiny.

But as we saw from O’Donnell’s statement Coulson had an initial ‘SC’ level of vetting which allowed him to see secret, and sometimes top secret, material….and he was undergoing the DV process when he resigned.

Once again the BBC is allowing false information to be broadcast and false assertions made against Cameron without challenge.

Even at 17:00 the BBC were still claiming Coulson wasn’t vetted properly:

17:00: PMQs update – Labour is hoping to keep up the pressure on David Cameron by asking Sir David Normington, the former senior civil servant and Commissioner for Public Appointments, to investigate why Andy Coulson was not given top-level security clearance when he worked in Downing Street.


The Labour Spad then went on to claim that DV would have discovered that Coulson had been involved in hacking…..complete rubbish.

Shame though…that would have saved a £100 million trial…who knew eh?  If only we had taken the Guardian’s word for things we could have chucked Coulson in jail and saved oursleves £100 million.

The same Guardian that lied about the News of The World deleting Milly Dowler’s text messages.


The BBC, whilst forensically delving into PMQs remarkably avoids the point raised by Philip Davies, Tory MP, (24 mins 50 secs) that when he was on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into Press standards, privacy and libel   no concerns had been raised about Coulson by any party, and that Nick Davies of the Guardian came to the Committee and revealed that he had never seen any evidence that directly linked Coulson to phone hacking and that the Committee concluded that:

‘have, however, not seen any evidence that the then Editor, Andy Coulson, knew, but consider he was right to resign.’


Always curious, and telling, what the BBC dodges around.


Miliband’s claims are comprehensively trashed by O’Donnell’s statement to Leveson…the statement that neither Andrew Neil nor Nick Robinson could find.