BBC journalist leaks info to anti-Corbyn activist. BBC’s astonishing, arrogant response

trust bbc.png
A notice that appears at the bottom of BBC News articles – with a topical amendment

Last night the SKWAWKBOX published exclusive evidence showing a BBC journalist not only leaking sensitive information to an anti-Corbyn activist in the London borough of Haringey – but sending it to her about ten hours before it was sent to its proper recipients.

The information in question was intended to affect Labour Party candidate selection procedures after a complaint about a sitting councillor – but also included the journalist’s personal opinions about the case and about statements made by the complainant against the councillor.

The email also confirmed that the journalist had access to information that made clear that a complaint last year by the councillor, which the journalist published unchallenged in a BBC report, was untrue.

The leaking of the email and the information it contained raised serious questions about the ethics and appropriateness of sending it – and about the BBC’s impartiality in the way information and claims were presented.

The identity of the journalist and councillor in question, along with details of the information and the untrue claim, will be released shortly in a separate article. However, after the journalist declined to answer any further questions and asked the SKWAWKBOX to contact the BBC, we sent full details of the events to the BBC, with a request for answers to the following, important questions:

  1. is it considered appropriate and ethical behaviour by a BBC journalist to be sending information regarding a sensitive disciplinary case to a third party? When we first spoke to Ms _____ this evening, she denied having sent the information to Ms Mulready.
  2. Ms ______ wrote to the LCF:

    “I also saw the actual emails sent by ________ to Cllr ____ and to other Labour members which – in terms tone and language – did appear to be intimidatory. But, to be clear, it was not _________ who gave me those emails.”

    This is clearly a personal opinion rather than a communication of someone else’s, but when we challenged Ms _________ about this earlier, she claimed she was merely communicating someone else’s opinion. Is this appropriate?

  3. As noted in question two, she stated that she ‘saw the actual emails’. A BBC article written by Ms ________ quoted Ms _____, unchallenged, claiming [something that was disproven by one of those emails]
  4. we asked Ms _______ whether she was unaware that Ms Mulready resigned from the Labour Party the day before a Labour disciplinary hearing into allegations of bullying against her? She has asked us to put the question to the BBC press office
  5. we asked Ms ______ whether she didn’t realise how sharing that information with a 3rd party would raise concerns about collusion between the BBC and anti-left figures if it ever came to light. She has asked us to put the question to the BBC press office
  6. Did a BBC Senior manager authorise this journalist to write to the Labour party and intervene in an internal disciplinary case?
  7. Did Ms ______ know Cllr _____, Nora Mulready, Claire Kober or any of the other pro-HDV figures before being allocated to the case? If so, why was she still given it?

The BBC’s response, which was sent with instructions to attribute it to a ‘spokesperson’:

We are confident our reporting met our editorial standards.

That was the sum total of the response.

  • Nothing about ethics. Nothing about appropriateness
  • No answer whether a BBC manager had authorised the intervention or whether the BBC journalist knew key pro-HDV, anti-Momentum figures personally and had been given the case anyway
  • Nothing about whether the journalist knew Ms Mulready’s relevant circumstances when she sent her information about a disciplinary case involving someone else
  • No response to the claim by the journalist that she had seen emails sent to the councillor, one of which disproved a claim by the councillor that the journalist published without comment or challenge
  • No answer to concerns about the danger of the appearance of collusion in a BBC journalist sharing sensitive information with a partisan activist, even before it was sent to its proper recipients

Just a one-line answer to a question that we hadn’t asked.

We wrote back to the BBC:

This is entirely unresponsive to almost every question asked – and you kept us waiting all day for it.
The questions about ethics and appropriateness of a BBC journalist intervening in a political party matter and sending information to a hostile third party – and about whether Ms ______ had the BBC’s permission to do so – remain completely unanswered.
Is the BBC going to respond to those questions or ignore them?

As we have received no answer almost six hours later, it seems the BBC is going to ignore them.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. This response proves beyond any doubt that the BBC is guilty on all counts.

    Credibility, professionalism and integrity are clearly of no importance to the broadcaster.

  2. Namaste Skwawkbox,

    The BBC are yet another rotting part of the ‘establishment’ Mr.Corbyn needs to take a battle-axe to: not dismantle entirely but to cleave out the dead–wood, the rot, the knots and chop away corruption at the root.

    Oh and whilst there he can also whittle away all the other creeps hiding skeletons and truths in dusty cupboards. ‘Standards’ being what they are I’m certain he’ll be kept busy by all he finds.

    Love and Peace. Power to the People!

    Namaste 🙂


  3. Seeing as we have all been forced to pay the BBC to employ paedophiles, and people who don’t either care about paedophiles or don’t possess the moral fibre to report paedophiles for quite literally years, much of which went hand in hand with the political establishment of the time, should we really be surprised that they are now still hand in hand with some of the worst politicians this country has seen in decades, covering up what is necessary and doing the bidding of those that wield the real power?

  4. Its a mafia MSM they are a protection racket, for the rich and powerful.
    The BBC response is the same response they give to any complaints. When you don’t except their first response, they give themselves 20 working days to deal with it. I never got a response. I then went to Ofcom, exactly the same procedure, know transparency. They don’t respond to complaints. Ofcom is a revolving door of Ex bbc staff and press.

  5. I recently contacted the BBC to ask what was the editorial rationale for featuring an inside page anti Momentum story from the Mail in their newspaper review. It was the only inside story reported and was the same story dismissed as “thin” on the Marr show. I received exactly the same reply. I am now awaiting a response to my follow up of why bother to have a complaints procedure if the complaint is not addressed other than to give a bland ,cover all reply.

    1. If you look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/complaints_and_appeals/
      You cannot find any complaints being upheld, even when the evidence shows clear bias. Like I have said previously they know Ofcom has got their back. There is clear suppression of complaints to right wing bias.
      My first petition was refused on the suppression of complaints by BBC and Ofcom, I have started another one with more detail and evidence.
      I just need 5 people too sign please for it to progress.

  6. The arrogance of the BBC and its journalists knows no bounds. It is so infatuated by its own self-importance that it actually believes that it has a right to receive public funding because it has a monopoly on what it considers to be the “truth” when it is in fact only the BBC’s version of the truth.
    I can see a day in the not too distant future when the Beeb will be required to fend for itself like other TV and radio providers. Even Murdoch does not expect me to pay for his dreadful TV stations unless I actually watch them.

  7. they all need sacking they all need to be shown to those who don’t believe bbc is corrupt

  8. How many of you are still paying a licence fee?

    It’s quite an easy solution…STOP IT.

    PS – I’d have no compunction about naming names after THAT response, Skwawky.

  9. “We are confident our reporting met our editorial standards.”

    Yes, I think it did!

  10. “You can trust us because we’re trustworthy”
    Such circular reasoning insults even their target audience – the one dulled by years of reality TV, game shows and cookie-cutter “dramas” into accepting whatever passes across their screens.

  11. The BBC are now governed by Ofcom. Time to start to complaining to them en masse.

    1. Jeanette,
      the complaints system is to put you off, or to just hide it away.
      BBC 1st response denial to the complaint, when you don’t except that decision, they ask for 20 working days to respond. In my case they didn’t. If you look at complaints that went to the BBC trust, I believe only one was upheld and that was Laura Kuenssberg editing Corbyn interview. Which the BBC chose to ignore.
      Now you complain to Ofcom, the first thing they do is ask for more detail if they need it. Then they say your complaint will be published if they take it further https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/broadcast-bulletins.
      I looked at the history of complaints and could not find any for the BBC, Sky, ITV news or political programs.
      Good luck if you get anywhere.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: