Blog

Definitely, hats off to the Guardian for reporting this - many papers would have shied away from putting something in that ran so contrary to their interests. The BBC, meanwhile, is attracting a fair bit of flak amid a small amount of praise for publishing the guy's name in its editors' blog.

Personally I'm with the critics on this one. The BBC has so overstepped the mark it's not true.

Or at least stop telling everyone you must have been sober on the night you can't account for because you got home OK. Loads of us do it when plastered - it's not difficult. Even then, you could draw the line at explaining your route home from Green Park to Streatham - a claim that you did this straightforwardly via London Bridge is tosh, the straightforward route is Green Park tube then change at Stockwell and straight to Tooting Bec.

The real problem is that the Bishop is claiming he wasn't drunk and because of his position everyone thinks it's hilarious. So whatever ill-advised interview he gives, he's not going to win.

I do wonder about some of the other conditions that could produce the same symptoms as this, though. Supposing, after proper medical assessment, he wasn't drunk but was found to have had a stroke? Or that this was the onset of Alzheimer's? It might not sound quite so hilarious I suppose, and won't sell the papers. But deep down inside me there's a niggle that says a middle aged to elderly man found completely out of control is more of a cause for concern than for a laugh.

The beeb says in its report that he gave the interview on the understanding that it was for background and would not be broadcast. It seems that now he's a murder suspect their undertaking is null and void. I'm not comfortable with this.

There are a few reasons for my unease. First, remember he's a suspect and has yet to stand trial. So by law he's assumed innocent until proven guilty. This means the BBC is trashing a promise to an innocent man for the sake of a story. The world now knows he pays for prostitutes.

Also, even if he's guilty - and please don't tell me his trial can't be prejudiced by the above disclosure - when did it become OK to break a promise of confidentiality just because someone's a criminal? I can see the logic of handing the interview to the police. Lives are being lost here so of course anything material should be disclosed. But publishing or broadcasting has nothing to do with preventing further killing. Instead it has everything to do with chasing a story no matter whose word is broken in the process.

But who's going to give the BBC a backround interview again? I don't think I'd trust them. And as always it's the viewer, whose stories won't be as well-informed as previously because of people holding back, who'll suffer.

Craig Hinton was cremated yesterday at a quiet service in Portchester Crematorium. It was well attended by friends past and preset. Played in to the strains of the Doctor Who theme - made sense if you knew him - and played out to Total Eclipse of the Heart, it was tastefully done. How his mother coped I don't know. I suppose you just have to.

Inevitably the gathering afterwards turned into a bit of a social event. It was good to catch up with some old friends, all of whom agreed we need to get together again before another funeral unites us. Whether this will happen I don't know but I hope so.

Goodbye, Craig. It was a nice service, just 40 years too early.

It's with sadness that I report the death of one of my former commissioning editors, Craig Hinton. He edited one of the network publications at VNU about ten years ago and was always helpful with a brief and an all-round good type to work with.

Dismally he was 42. The tributes around the web are concentrating on his science fiction output, which was prodigious; a lot of us in the tech press/formerly of the tech press will miss him too.

It's back:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/051206/wilmington_buys_press_gazette_magazine_journalism_newspaper

The only question remaining will be how they address a readership whose members share less and less in common with each other.