Context is important when deciding whether the requirements of impartiality have been met.  In this case, Baroness Curran, a Labour Peer, had been invited onto the programme to discuss the implications for the Labour Party of Lord Mandelson’s association with Jeffrey Epstein.  She expressed her anger at what she described as “a very serious betrayal of government” and said many Labour colleagues shared her view that Lord Mandelson’s conduct had damaged the party.  She went on to argue the affair was distracting people from other political issues and “taking up far too much of the oxygen” and in that context praised the leadership of Mr Sarwar and his handling of political issues. 

The BBC’s guidelines on impartiality do not oblige programmes to address every related issue or scrutinise every point of view.  The editorial focus of this interview was clearly the impact of Lord Mandelson’s conduct on the Labour Party, and the presenter was entitled to keep the discussion centred on that rather than diverting it into a discussion of Mr Sarwar.  It was also reasonable to assume listeners would have recognised Baroness Curran was expressing a party-political view when she spoke in favourable terms about Mr Sarwar.

Not Upheld