Who's furious ?

Some people who should know better are making things worse in the Naga Munchetty case. And since Naga's name is in the frame, I will add a few names.

Direction of Communications John Shield. You can't brush this aside with partial responses and Twitter banners. This story started in the Times as a "complaint upheld", and has moved in 48 hours to "partially upheld". It started as "It's not known what sanction will be taken", to an overnight briefing "Munchetty is not facing any action or reprimand, BBC News understands."

The BBC News story says a complete transcript has been released. It's pointless unless that transcript underlines in red the exact words which have fallen foul of their Editorial Guidelines. Where is Fraser Steel, Head of Editorial Complaints (for over 19 years) in all this ?  Is it true that there was one complainant ?  Is this one complainant the source of judgment to The Times ? Is it true that some staff have been told not to comment about the row on social media ?  Have current affairs programmes been advised that it's not an issue for debate ?

I look forward to the views of the BBC Board's Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, led by Ian Hargreaves, sitting alongside Tony Hall, Fran Unsworth, Tanni Grey-Thompson, Nicholas Serota and Tom Ilube.

0900 Update. David Jordan, BBC Director, Editorial Policy and Standards, was interviewed on the Today Programme by Nick Robinson. He patronised interviewer and listeners by saying we had misunderstood the full judgement by the ECU.  The full judgment, an elliptical 97 words, makes it no clearer as to the words in breach....

"In the view of the Executive Complaints Unit it was entirely legitimate for Ms Munchetty, when pressed by Mr Walker for a personal response, to reply in terms which reflected her own experience of racism and the racist context in which suggestions that people from ethnic minorities should go back to their own countries are generally made. However, she went on to comment critically on the possible motive for, and potential consequences of, the President’s words.  Judgments of that kind are for the audience to make, and the exchange fell short of due impartiality in that respect."