BBC Live Interview on Parsons Green ends in farce

BBC Radio 5 interviewed the former head of counter terrorism at the Met. Asked him loads of questions about incident response and the like.

He concluded with "This won't stop until we tackle the dangerous ideologies out there - salafism and the like."

The BBC host immediately moved to stop the interview and couldn't get his comment "that's all speculation" in quickly enough. "We don't know it's that kind of terrorism"

The guest simply stated "Yes, it is."

The interiew was immediately wound up, and moved to a tone of dismissing or almost mocking the guest - an expert in counter-terrorism who they had invited on.

This is where this war is going to be lost.

BBC has to be impartial and can't be seen, or thought, to be reporting facts that aren't known. Reporter was just covering their back.

You can interview on the BBC and say almost anything you like. You can say that 9/11 was an Israeli conspiracy, you can say "The West" has murdered millions of innocent Muslims. You can say all British soldiers are murderers. They will never stop an interview or interject with covering caveats under those circumstances.

People do it every day, especially on Radio 5 - and it's only when they invite their own guest on, who goes off their expected message, that they rush to redact.

You can interview on the BBC and say almost anything you like. You can say that 9/11 was an Israeli conspiracy, you can say "The West" has murdered millions of innocent Muslims. You can say all British soldiers are murderers. They will never stop an interview or interject with covering caveats under those circumstances.

People do it every day, especially on Radio 5 - and it's only when they invite their own guest on, who goes off their expected message, that they rush to redact.

Not from someone they're bringing on as an expert. There are rules they try to follow.

This is a developing story and millions are tuning in to get the facts. Broadcasters (and especially the BBC) must be careful to separate speculation and fact.

This is a non-story.

So you dismiss the opinion of the former head of CT at the Met?

The aim of the BBC right now is not to give opinions but to provide facts. There's a very good chance that it is Islamic terrorism but there's no evidence yet. If someone came on the air to dismiss Islamic terrorism in relation to this incident then they would also be cut-off.

Nah, the BBC did the right thing. We haven't got the details of who was behind the attack.

And you don't believe that an expert on counter terrorism can give an opinion?

Of course they can. But you can give an opinion w/o blaming/implying an group or religious group w/o evidence yet.

Then there's no point in having an opinion.

"I think terrorists are responsible for this terrorism"

Trump has tweeted it was terrorism.

He gets briefings from MI5 and would know.

The UK police have already confirmed it is a terrorist incident.

I'm more concerned by the former Met head being so quick to rush to the conclusion that it was an Islamist attack.

Nah, the BBC did the right thing. We haven't got the details of who was behind the attack.