Oh dear. Recently, this blog and the CEP news blog highlighted the government's latest proposal to cover up the concept of England, thus continuing the devolutionary nightmare of inequality levelled against every man, woman and child in England, by proposing the teaching of "core British values" - but only in schools in England.
Well, the BBC news website saw fit to seek out the views of one David Eaglesham, of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association, although Scotland will be unaffected by the proposed legislation. No view was sought from an English teaching association.
It seems that the Beeb was also seeking to paper over the facts of devolution.
Drew wrote an e-mail of complaint and got the following, part evasive nonsense, part pro-forma:
Thank you for your e-mail regarding bbc.co.uk.
I appreciate that you objected to the way in which the story in question allowed a Scottish spokesperson to give his views regarding the Government's proposed citizenship classes in schools. I note that since you felt that since Scotland has a devolved government that this constituted a pro-Scottish bias.
Firstly, I should state that David Eaglesham's comments were only 1/8 of the comments presented on the web page. Part of our role as an impartial observer is to report every side of the argument and in this occasion we felt it was important to discuss the views of a Scottish spokesperson.
Our website editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. Among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting. I recognise, however, that you may not share this view. Therefore, please be assured that your comments on this matter have been registered and added to a daily log that is made available to senior management within the BBC, as well as website editors.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us with the strength of your concerns.
Firstly, the mailing states that the Beeb felt it was "important" to seek a Scottish viewpoint on this non-Scottish matter. No explanation of why. That seems completely illogical and there is more than a slight display of arrogance in declining to justify the decision.
We'll squander your licence money on what WE deem important. We don't have to explain - that seems to be the attitude.
Secondly, later in the mailing, the BBC refers to "significant views". Significant views usually relate to those held by people affected by an ongoing situation or proposal.
Thirdly - "among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting".
Well, that sounds rather smug - and rather far removed from reality. I hear things to the contrary every week, particularly when it comes to the BBC's covering of matters relating to England and the democratic deficit post-devolution.
There is more than a suggestion that the BBC is above reproach, so it must be Drew's viewpoint that is at fault.
In reality, what sane person would call the BBC impartial? Its PC preaching and distortion of the news, coupled with its refusal to cover the affects of devolution on England, smells like an overloaded dustbin in the summer sun. The briefest inspection would send most people reeling away.
The BBC e-mail is an absolute disgrace, and illustrates just how unaccountable this so called accountable organisation is to the vast majority of people in the UK - the people of England.
This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.