Barry, I think you offered to explain processes to us several pages ago, then subsequently said you didn’t have time. You do seem to be investing quite a bit of time in replying to individual posts, however, which, you’re suggesting, continue to misunderstand such processes.
It may be worth one lengthy post “walking us through” it in place of this after all? Several people have said they’d be grateful - I’d be interested. Recurrent issues to address could include: the BBC not picking up on apparent anomalies in information from a trusted source (violent murder by woman) across an extended period of time despite other publications doing so; the difficulties of reconciling this with the BBC’s mandate to provide accurate information; my own earlier questions re: their journalistic responsibilities regarding this, as offering necessary context through an “explainer” or investigative piece, for example, would go some way to compensating for the limitations we perceive in their reporting. (We recognise you don’t speak for the BBC, but fleshing out your earlier partial comments on it may save you some frustration).
It may also be worth bearing in mind that, while you seem to be focussing on current processes and constraints as justification for inaccurate or misleading reporting, we’re suggesting that there’s a huge ethical issue with this and an urgent need for change - a “bigger picture” argument. It would be interesting to hear your views on this.