Most were ordinary greetings. But the investigation identified many other recordings raising substantially more serious questions including foul offensive language not printable here - directly to the camera - paid for by Farage's own clients.

They included a supportive message to a man convicted of violent disorder during the 2024 riots, promotion of an event organised by Canadian neo-Nazis, repeated references to far-right slogans, allusions to antisemitic conspiracy theories and offensive remarks about female politicians.

The investigation also examined Farage's total of at least £374,893 earnings, the information supplied in video requests, and questions about his judgement and parliamentary responsibilities.

*THESE WERE NOT SIMPLY ANOTHER EMBARRASSING POLITICAL REMARK - THESE WERE EXTREME*

The Guardian presented a documented investigation into the conduct of a prominent elected politician.

Farage's representatives rejected suggestions of extremist alignment. They explained that recordings were generally made in good faith, that thousands were produced and that occasional mistakes were possible.

Those responses were important. So was examination of the evidence against which they could be judged.

WHAT DID THE BBC REPORT?

1/. On 19 March, BBC Wales concentrated on Farage describing Welsh wedding guests as "foreign speakers", giving considerable attention to political reaction.

2/. On 20 March, BBC Politics reported that Farage had paused his Cameo account, citing Reform UK's explanation of security concerns.

The second report did mention some allegations, including the convicted rioter and Canadian extremist event - but none of the more offensive one.

However, the two articles, taken together, offered a substantially narrower examination than the original investigation and published them in just one REGION of the UK - not, due to the seriousness of the Guardian report - the entire NATION?.

FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTING PUBLIC - THE BBC ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE

Repeated slogans, antisemitic references, the significance of the requests supplied to Farage and the broader questions about his judgement received limited or no substantive examination.

This was not a case requiring the BBC to reconstruct years of political history. Another news organisation had already investigated thousands of recordings and published evidence days earlier.

The BBC was free to make independent editorial decisions. But freedom of selection also carries responsibility for the impression left with its audience. Reporting that allegations exist is not necessarily the same as explaining their substance, significance or implications.

For a publicly funded broadcaster with national and international responsibilities, that distinction matters.

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE BBC COPIED THE GUARDIAN. IT IS WHETHER IT GAVE THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT POLITICAL SCRUTINY.

Would equivalent revelations involving another major party leader have received the same emphasis, depth and follow-up - ABSOLUTELY NOT - SO THE QUESTION IS WHY?

Perhaps watching the videos would help explain WHY the BBC decided not to publish news that would damage him? Click Here