The UK Supreme Court has upheld the refusal by the BBC to release information under the Freedom of Information Act, on the basis that it is exempt when that information is held for the purposes of "journalism, art or literature", even when the information is also used for other purposes.
The case was brought by a UK based solicitor, Steven Sugar, who had wanted the BBC to release the Balen Report, an internal report into the BBC's coverage of the Middle East. Mr Sugar had claimed that the BBC was biased against Israel.
As a result of the ruling, the BBC said:
Independent journalism requires honest and open internal debate free from external pressures. This ruling enables us to continue to do that.
This is typical Common Purpose speak. If the BBC had nothing to hide, if it felt secure in its unbiased position, why would it fear public scrutiny of "open internal debate?" Are the opinions of individuals within the BBC's editorial team so embarrassing that they need to be kept hidden?
So actually, the BBC is saying:
Our state controlled, biased journalism required secret internal debate, free from any public scrutiny. This ruling enables us to continue pedalling our propaganda.
This ruling is another nail in coffin of a free press, as the Leveson Inquiry, Common Purpose, the Media Standards Trust and some within the media, especially at the BBC and the Guardian, all conspire to achieve state control and an end to free speech in this country.