On the face of it, this report from the BBC website seems reasonable.
But check out the picture of Lord Pearson. Do you think it would have been possible for the BBC to have found a more sinister picture of the UKIP leader?
I don't - and I don't think it is a coincidence either. This is another example of the BBC's institutional bias showing through its rather thin veneer of "impartiality".
I know that news organisations put a great deal of effort into finding the "right" pictures for their articles. The old adage that a picture speaks a thousand words is as true today as it has ever been and the BBC use this to promote their particular ideology.
The BBC is not impartial.
It does not deserve to be publicly funded.