The Editors

if think the bbc were right in broadcasting this interveiw it is only fair that the public see this and i hope that the killer of these women is found before christmas to put both the pulic and the girls familes' minds at rest!

I am staggered by the claim that it was felt that the interview could be in no way prejudicial. Potential jurors could hardly escape seeing this information which links Stephens to all 5 victims. How can they be expected to put such information to one side?

"ultimately our judgement was based on what we felt would be right for our audiences"

Should it not be based on what is right for justice - firstly in ignoring the wishes of the interviewee, but most importantly, on not prejudicing any possible later trial?

The audience should come well done the list of priorities here.

The BBC has trodden all over any sense of justice. Has anything been learned from the Hutton inquiry? The BBC seems no better than the tabloids.

Do you anticipate that future background interviewees will be less forthcoming, knowing that if they become involved in a public matter then their "not for broadcast" interview may well be broadcast anyway, without their consent?

On this occasion I think you've got it totally wrong. I am completely unpersauded by the "public interest" argument - I can't see any. Sure the public is interested, but that's not the same thing.

If they guy did it, well the public interest will be served by the justice system alone, we don't actually need to know what he said last week.

If he wasn't involved well you've spent a day splashing is name, face, biographical details and an in-confidence interview all over the news, to what end?

The second arrest today shows the story is perhaps more complicated than we might think. I would think the BBC would do well to reign back its increasingly tabloid instincts and serve the public interest with less sensation.

"The anonymity, which Mr Stephens had sought to preserve by making the interview for background only, no longer applied."

In whose judgement? Did Mr Stephens change his mind about anonymity and agree to let you broadcast the interview, or was that a unilateral decision by the BBC?

It would be really good if you could clarify that rather important point.

Adrian, it's your call. If it doesn't prejudice a future trial, then you made a sound journalistic decision in the best traditions of your profession. If it does, then I hope you'll do the right thing.

This is totally unacceptable of BBC. If reporters tell you they will protect your identity and then go ahead and reveal your identity without the consent of the person in question, who can trust them again? I for one won't.

How many people really are investigative when it comes to the media?? Very, very few... I am glad the BBC are being criticised for this interview and the amount of photographs that have been used to show this man.

Particularly the photo with the 'sinister eye paint'. No it's paint. People are spoon fed what they are told, and the BBC are very aware of this

You are claiming that you decided to broadcast this interview because it was in 'the public interest'. I am rather more inclined to believe that you decided to show it as a 'scoop' for the BBC.

I fear any decisions taken about the interview were more concerned with audience share than 'public interest' or with any thought to due legal process.

Broadcasting this interview was clearly against the public interest when one considers the implications of subverting the judicial system over the short-term gratification of a news-hungry audience.

Has the BBC learnt nothing from the David Kelly affair?

"We felt there was a compelling public interest in letting the public hear what he had to say."

So what?

Let's not got all American and judge people guilty until proven innocent.

Very, very sloppy and inappropriate journalism - I'd have expected this from the The Sun or Sky, but not from the BBC.

Forget justice for a minute: more straightforwardly, how can you reasonably say that a change in circumstances warrants your decision to waive the promise you gave to this man of anonymity? Did your reporter say to him that his words would be used only for background barring an exceptional change in circumstances? I think it highly unlikely. I'd like to know what you would have done in the David Kelly affair. You've broken the rules of the most fundamental relationship in journalism - that between reporter and source - because it gave you a good story, and I kinda think it stinks.

Quite agree with Richard. There is a huge difference between the public interest and what the public is interested in.
I'm not convinced the media should have even been allowed to publish the name of and information about the man who's been arrested. He hasn't even been charged with a crime.

From my point of view, it was very interesting to hear the interview and read so much about this 'suspect' but surely my interests are not as important as justice. This man is entitled to a fair trial - IF he is charged and brought to court - not trial by the media.

This is the sort of publicity stunt I'd expect from certain red bannered tabloids but not the BBC. Well, certainly not the BBC of old.

I am appalled at the media coverage and in particular the broadcast of the suspects interview with the BBC. To say that its content would not be prejudicial may be legally correct but the fact that it has been so widely broadcast will mean that it will be virtually impossible for this man to receive a fair and unbiased trial. In the event that he is released without charge he will still be pursued by the media and be ostracised by the community in which he lives, ask anyone who has been falsely accused of, for example, rape. Mud sticks you know !!

I'm shocked that somebody, who is innocent until proven guilty, can have his wishes totally disregarded by the BBC. The BBC's defence is weak and whiney.

Furthermore, if the audience is the BBC's priority, why are all comments fully moderated by the blog owner?

What about broadcasting Stephens' MySpace page in its entireity, leading to untold grief for the people listed as his "friends"?

That's grossly irresponsible.

It seems like the BBC milked an exclusive interview for the sake of ratings!

Has the Contempt of Court Act been repealed? I thought Contempt of Court by publication occurs when there is (a) substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to particular proceedings; and
(b) the case is active.

In this instance the case is active because of an arrest, and I can't think of many potential jurors who, if this case comes to trial, won't have formed an opinion already, based on what they've seen or heard.

Absolutely disgraceful.

The moral of this story and the subsequent events is "don't talk to the media", as they have little compunction about backtracking on their stated commitments (verbal contract?) at interview time.

Fine, though, if the interviewer and/or editor subsequently feel that the police should be informed of the conversation. Strange, though, that the media often take a different stance when the police ask for information as to a reporter's source(s).

One can just about justify anything if one has a mind to. Duplicitous behaviour by the media? Surely not!

I suspect the BBC may have shot themselves in the foot with this one. How many people who are aware of this and want to remain anonymous are going to be happy to offer the BBC an interview?

I question the public interest of broadcasting this interview. What greater good is served is this action subsequently renders the material inadmissable in court? How is anyone beneifitted if we cannot, with any degree of confidence, assemble a jury untainted with this information?

I think you did the dirty on this guy. He spoke to you under condition of anonymity, a condition you recinded at your own behest! I did not expect this of the BBC and strongly suspected you would have a better reason than this for doing so. I think you've shot yourselves in the foot, here, for future interviews.

I agree with Richard's first comment here: Adrian Van-Klaveren's argument is flawed. It is wrong-headed to suggest that a decision taken based on what was considered "right" for an audience is a good decision.

This attempt at justification serves only to further diminish my view of the BBC's handling of this affair. I hope all involved are suitably ashamed.

I agree with Richard above, broadcasting pictures of police searching his house, his mothers house, carring out evidence bags etc all serve to predudice the audience anaganst this man. Please imagine what his life is going to be like even if he is not charged - might be intresting to an audience perhaps, but the decision to broadcast this interview was morally wrong.

"ultimately our judgement was based on what we felt would be right for our audiences"

Errr... didn't you mean to say...

"ultimately our judgement was based on what we felt would be right for our ratings"

Dont insult our intelligence - the main reason the interview was broadcast was that you had one over on SKY. This was proved by the garish strap on the Six O'Clock News "BBC EXCLUSIVE"

It seems that journalistic law goes out the window all too often when the networks are competing to be more sensationalist than the other.

The BBC should refrain from this but it seems the standards adhered to by newsrooms up and down the country go out the window with "Network" coverage.

But still I'm sure there was much patting of backs and scratching of chins after the broadcast.

The BBC is acting as if something the "public is interested in" is the same as something "in the public interest". These are extremely different and the Beeb is treating us as stupid if it thinks we dont know and cannot spot the difference. The sad truth is that we probably are stupid but the beeb, if it wants to be respected as a world class News presenting organisation, should not take advantage of our stupidity or of our lust for sensation. DO BETTER. Dont make pathetic excuses; APOLOGISE and recover some respect (some self-respect!!).

It is a pity that the BBC has to enter the ratings war at the expense of integrity. It's very tabloidal, sets a dangerous precedent and is disappointing.

I hope that it does not prejudice the case

The police hadn't confirmed the name of the man they had arrested. For good reason: we presume innocent until proven guilty. Because of media outlets such as the BBC, the police's correct behaviour is without power to support this extremely important principle of our justice system. Broadcasting the interview was just another way of getting on the tabloid bandwagon and was shameful.

Years ago, journalism was a profession, one which one had to train for and work hard to get a job somewhere like the BBC. One had to show skill an integrity. Part of the training was learning how to handle informers or people assisting. An absolute golden rule for journalists was that they protect the identity of the people that help them - that's part of the deal, and something the BBC agreed it wutg this man. The same goes for anonymous tipoffs, or whistleblowers. The honour of journalism used to be that these were absolute rules - journalists have gone to court to protect that honour in the past. Now, the BBC decides it can get some senationalism into a story, claiming the "public interest" - when will journalists learn that the "public interest" does not mean "things the public might be interested in...".

It's simply disgusting that the BBC, and specifically Mr. Van-Klaveren have no such honour and cannot be trusted. This will deter people from assisting journalists in future.

I haven’t seen the video but a friend talked of it last night, commenting on her perception of the demeanour and character of the gentleman in question…… I believe she would have been level headed and would have come to measured decision if called up to the jury for this case, having heard and seen all the evidence presented. But after last night....god help him if she's in that box. BBC - im not sure who you will have to worry about more if a mistrial is called - the families, the public or the police.

I can't see that public interest is a defence in broadcasting this tape. The only public interest is handing it over to the police as evidence. In future, when a BBC journalist wants to do an interview "not for broadcast", they'll have to say "unless circumstances alter, of course".

Does the B.B.C. ever admit it was wrong?

Are you sure the fact that you had an exclusive interview with him didn't influence your decision? If not - why was the interview heavily trailed as 'exclusive'

If you had a background interview with this man and published it after his arrest this is both potentially prejudicial and against your agreement with him that it was background information. I don't see how you could justify this on his arrest alone. Sure, it is interesting, but its more interesting later if he is guilty and very poor journalism if he is not.

Only time will tell if the broadcast of parts of the interview affect the outcome. What I thought much more inappropriate was the use by the reporter in the BBC 6 o'clock news yesterday evening of the word 'infamous' to describe the street that this man lived in. Mr Stephens had been arrested - not charged, not appeared in court, not found guilty, not sentenced yet the street had already become 'infamous.' The press had already tried and convicted and perhaps it is this attitude which ultimately would affect the ability of a jury not to be influenced. So BBC please get a perspective!! What adjective will you use if indeed this man did commit these crimes.

Hardly the first instance of a journalist willfully conflating 'public interest' and 'what the public are interested in', but depressing nonetheless.

I think the BBC overstepped its mandate personally.

His name and his Myspace page is information that he volunteered to be published, but his interview with the BBC was expressely prohibited by verbal agreement not to be published.

You cannot ask someone to speak candidly off the record on a subject and then go back on that agreement and publish it simply to win mindshare.

This is a man's life we're talking about here. He hasn't even been charged for any offence yet and his human rights and privacy have been completely ignored.

I expected this sort of "guilty until proven innocent" journalism from the tabloids, not from the BBC.

If it transpires he IS innocent then what the BBC and others have achieved is to destroy the life of someone who is clearly already in a dark place socially and emotionally. Is THAT in the public interest?

Another 'exceptional change in circumstances' Mr Van-Klaveren is that another man has subsequently been arrested in relation to all five murders. Lets hope that your disregard for Mr Stevens requested anonymity (innocent until proven guilty) does not end up destroying the life of another person in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What is right for the masses (audiences) does not necessarily take precedence over the rights of the individual - even in celebrity tv land.

If I was to trust any media's judgement in a similar situation, it would be BBC's. Compared to the tabloid coverage, the BBC's is far more balanced.

Commercially motivated sensationalism not public interest

Why do these types of blog always end up along the lines of "We decided to broadcast the material but it's okay because we agonised about it for a while first"?

Let's hear more about the things you've decided not to broadcast where other media have done.

If there are any.

I live and work in the USA and totally expect this "in public interest" excuse here, where trial by media is common place, but not from the BBC.

Mr Van-Klaveren, perhaps you could give us some more information on the assurances you gave to Mr Stephens about his anonymity, and why you broke them.

He is, after all, an innocent man who has not been charged with any offence. I would be keen to hear the ethical justification for your decision.

The BBC never says sorry. And they don't really listen. A lot of the criticism on this page has covered my gripes with the lovely tabloid 'British' Broadcasting Company, so there's not much more to add, other than - if there *is* a mistrail, who will be held responsible for releasing this evidence not just to the police, but into the public eye?

Irresponsible. Unethical. Disgusting.

Bang goes any integrity one may have associated with the BBC

I am glad so many were as surprised as I was by your decision.

Does anybody but BBC think it was right?

This exemplifies the problem with the mass media in the UK. Whilst insisting upon the necessity of a free press, the media continually demonstrate power without as shred of responsibility.

Do the decent thing Van Klaveran - don't offer excuses - offer your resignation.

Shocking behaviour by the BBC

Absolutely unbelievable. I echo others comments that this was a decision purely based on ratings.

Just out of interest, has the BBC received ANY support at all for this disgraceful decision?

Not much I can add other than agreement that the BBC (an organisation I greatly admire in general) showed very poor judgement in this case. But my attention was caught by Mr Van-Klaveren's comment, "Of course, we thought long and hard" before broadcasting the interview. I wonder how long "long" was. Half an hour, perhaps?

The BBC have behaved shamefully, breaking their word to Tom Stephens and potentially prejudicing any trial.

As others have observed, 'public interest' is not merely 'what may interest the public'. It seems that on this occasion the commercial concerns of the BBC have trumped ethical ones. At the very least an apology is in order.

I am in agreement with most fair-minded people. This interview was broadcast solely on the grounds of attracting viewers.

In fact the entire coverage by BBC news has a tabloid-style tackiness about it. Everything from George Alagiah's pressurising of a police constabel about their failure to make an arrest to the camera peering at Tom Stephens's back garden and side windows has been crude and upsetting.

I think it is clear that "the public" who have responded to this have no doubt that the BBC have made a disastrous blunder in broadcasting this interview. Even those who think it was OK only justify it on the grounds that they should be allowed to hear it - nothing to do with the legal risks.

The BBC has had absolutely no regard for "the public interest" at all, merely seeing the chance of a scoop - one can just imagine the editorial conference about it! There can be no doubt whatsoever that the public interest is best served by the perpetrator of these crimes being brought to justice. The BBC has deliberately and knowingly put that at risk by this intervention.

I would not be surprised if this sort of behaviour in the end leads to legislation to curb the media - and not before time.

In the short term the BBC should consider what to do about Mr Van-Klaveren. It took very heavy handed action over its actions at the time of Dr Kelly's death. It should think very carefully about what action to take over this dreadful misjudgement.

I am a BBC supporter and often stare in dismay at the various allegations or criticisms people throw at the BBC.

But in this case, the BBC has seriously dropped the ball.

Apart from anything else, Tom Stephens gave you an interview in confidence, and as it stands now he is an innocent man. If he is found guilty, then by all means broadcast it, but to go against the wishes of an innocent man who confided in you is shocking.

This seriously damages your credibility and is likely to damage your ability as journalists to expect people to give you information privately.

You need to think about your position on this, and I would hope you make a follow up post/broadcast to address the issues people have raised.

In my view a serious misjudgement by the BBC, borne out by the massive weight of opinion already published on this page.
I can only hope that the eventual outcome of the Ipswich investigation and any subsequent legal action delivers proper justice to Mr. Stephens, whether that means conviction or exhoneration.

It was another error of judgement by the BBC.

Mr. Van-Klavaren justifies by saying that there is "compelling public interest", but chooses to ignore the interests of justice. He says he thought "long and hard", but apparently didn't think long enough to seek legal advice. His says that he thought it "right for our audience", which appears to put ratings before the cause of justice.

Given that opinion on this forum has universally been contrary to the BBC's judgement, it would be good and honest of the BBC for, at a minimum, Adrian to return to attempt to address the points raised here - and preferably for its future broadcast coverage to highlight the strongly critical feedback of its cynical approach to date.

I used to think that BBC is the role model for the media in my country. Not any more.

I think it's inappropriate to broadcast an interview that was given for background use only. However, the reaction here seems extraordinary. I don't think the broadcast will prejudice any jury — all the information broadcast seemed pretty basic. The fact that he knew all the victims would almost certainly come out in court within the first 5 minutes of any trial.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

What if it turns out that Tom Stephens is innocent? How does he face the world after this?

The BBC is no better than the tabloid newspapers and has become the Sun of the TV broadcasters.

Public interest and something that the public would find interesting are NOT the same thing. The BBC should know better.

So, following this man's arrest, his accounts of the victims' "drug dealers and financial pressures" suddenly became more interesting? Erm, how?

I am absolutely disgusted at the BBC. What if this man is innocent. What about innocent until proven guilty.

That's the guts of 50 responses to Mr Van Klaveren's attempt to jusitfy the broadcasting of the interview, and not one in agreement with him so far. Thank goodness the public seem to have more sense than he does.

But will the Beeb admit it was wrong? Of course. Just as soon as hell freezes over.

Disgraceful piece of 'journalism'.

This is a terrible editorial decision - the arrest of this man was not sufficient in itself to justify potentially prejudicing a trial, and betraying the not for broadcast agreement you had with Tom Stephens.

The BBC normally has an image of a higher standard of journalism compared with other media - decisions such as this really do damage to that image.

Your judgment should not ultimately be based on what you feel would be right for your audience, as you have stated. Good journalism is much more than chasing ratings and getting an 'exclusive' by whatever means. It is sad to see that you apparently need respondants to your blog to explain to you the difference between an interested public and the public interest...

This interview has been published for one reason and one reason only, ratings! The BBC has almost certainly now prejudiced this case, and for what? Sensationalist journalism?

Justice for those 5 women is the only thing that matters here, not the BBC's ratings.

Quite frankly, broadcasting details of his identity when he has only been arrested, let alone charged, tried, or found guilty, is gutter journalism. The interview on top of that just makes things worse. It saddens me that the BBC stoops to such lows.

I am usually one of the first to leap to the defence of the BBC, but I'm afraid I can't do so in this case.

True, strictly speaking, there has been no contempt of court as the interview was made public before the man has been CHARGED (rather than arrested). However, it cannot fail to prejudice the defence if this goes to trial. And the arrest of a second man in connection with the murders raises some key questions about the yesterday's media-fest which seemed to have the first suspect already wrapped up and ready for prison before any charges were made.

First of all, the BBC's decision in this case is wrong because it does not serve justice nor the public interest. Secondly, as a knock-on effect, it is likely to make gathering background information much more difficult for BBC reporters from now on.

Shame - the BBC was always perceived as having more integrity than the tabloids.

I can't help thinking that if Sky, ITN etc had also had the interview with Mr Stevens, the BBC editorial team would have made a different decision and taken the moral high ground.

Could Adrian Van-Klaveren explain how, exactly, the public interest is served by the release of the interview? I can't say I feel any better off for it, quite the opposite!

Should be Mr Stevens be cleared of any involvement in this case, one would hope that he claims a significant sum of compensation from the BBC's blatant disregard for his privacy.

There is a feeling that the once impeccable reputation of the Beeb has been undermined by a surplus of journalists all anxious to make their mark by any means: even by using the tactics of the tabloids.
This is a notable example. The reputation of the Beeb has been badly damaged. The confidence of the public in giving information to the Beeb has been badly damaged.
The top echelons of the Beeb are either sympathetic to this sort of behaviour or lack control.

If he is innocent then the BBC will have destroyed his life, damaged their own long standing reputation and made a lot people reluctant to ever trust their word again.

If he is guilty then there is every liklihood that a good QC (paid no doubt by the state) will argue that the trial has been prejudiced by the publicity. And he then walks free?

It should not have been published, its serves no 'public interest' - its a 'no brainer'

As a "public service broadcaster" surely a really valuable service to the public would have been best delivered by taking a more principled and restrained position, rather than bowing to the "public interest" lobby which is, in truth, often more to do with morbid fascination?

The BBC got this very wrong.

I would also add that - to my mind - there have been various other interviews and associated coverage of events in Ipswich that I consider to have been unnecessarily intrusive and have given the impression of fishing for sensational scoops.

Let the police, CPS and justice system as a whole do their job unhindered.

I acknowledge that we live in a fast-changing world (not leasat in terms of technology), and therefore a review of media coverage of this case would not be out of place.

i was concerned about the coverage of the man arrested over the murders in ipswich. whether this man is guilty or not the coverage is
inappropriate. i am pleased that the bbc lawyers have commented but regret that they did not prevent the coverage. i have always enjoyed the quality of bbc news reporting but the coverage of this incident reminds me of american fox news. not a route the bbc should be taking. i hope more thought will be given to coverage of this and other similar incidents in the future and there are no repercussions for those involved this time.

As a journalist myself, I know that it is very important for contacts to believe that when they say something is off the record, they can trust that it will remain so. Every action like the decision to broadcast an interview clearly given as background is a betrayal of trust, regardless of whether the interviewee is ultimately proven guilty or not, and makes it harder for other journalists not to be treated with even greater caution. You have confused the public interest (your defence for the broadcast) with the public's interest(an entirely different thing).

I sort of understand where Adrian's coming from but I think the horse has bolted and the damage has been done.

By broadcasting the interview, you've initiated vehement legal and political debate which I suspect, in the long term, can't help but constrain the boundaries of UK journalism. Normally this type of provocation should be celebrated but so soon after the last great examination of editorial decision making by Lord Hutton, it's probably counter-productive.

The decision shows a lack of understanding of the current media climate in the UK and a startling demonstration of how little the impact has been of Hutton at decision-making level: cue another prolonged and excrutiating bout of navel gazing by the BBC and their journalistic standards - just think of the tortuous columns in MediaGuardian!

If you want to push the boundaries in these sensitive days, be a bit more savvy and do it incrementally, rather than going for the big, ego-boosting scoop. In this day and age, I don't think it'll get you anywhere special.

I suppose we should be grateful that the BBC gives us this chance to criticise its editorial decisions. I doubt the Sun or even the Times and the Guardian would offer us a similar opportunity. But I'm afraid that doesn't justify the BBC's decision to broadcast the Stephens interview. It is self-evident that this has prejudiced a possible trial and those of us who once worked for the BBC as journalists were rightly told by our bosses at the time that anything that prevented a defendant from getting a fair trial should not be broadcast. There is enough bending of the rules governing people's legal rights by both government and media right now.

Two problems here - firstly breaking jounalsitic trust and secondly possibly prejudicing a trial.

It is a shame that there is no alternative to the BBC website for news coverage because this is the sort of behaviour that would lead me to boycott an organisation.

Are you really happy to think that you are the type of person who's word carries no weight? I would be embarassed to admit I had made an agreement (verbal or ortherwise) with someone and then unilaterly decided to break it.

Of course the naming of the accused, his address and workplace and his video prejudice his trial. When I was arrested, charged and appeared in court on 4 occasions my name, address, work place were not broadcast anywhere. Therefore my trail happened with no media interest, just as 99.9% are. This man has very badly treated.

I am so sick of the BBC's self-righteous 'we're always right' posture when questioned over anything at all. Are you EVER wrong, I wonder?

This time you clearly are - by breaking the promise you made to a source, if for no other reason. That alone is unforgiveable, let alone the fact that you might just possibly have compromised the justice system.

No wonder your international reputation as a trusted news organisation - once unmatched - has in recent years deteriorated alarmingly. On current form you deserve no better.

I remember a certain weapons inspector who spoke to the BBC on condition of anonymity and this was maintained (at great pains) until his name was revealed by other means. Yet, this chap's request for anonymity was thrown aside at the drop of a hat...

I don't usually comment on these kind of things, as I usually feel the BBC has got it right - but not this time. Way off.

Being 'confident' is not good enough - are you certain it won't prejudice a trial if it goes to that.

Given that this guy gave the interview in confidence, it seems certain that he said things to you that he wouldn't have said for public airing.

What possible 'public interest' could there be when the guy is already in custody under questioning?.

The message from this?

The BBC is no better than any other news organisation and cannot be relied upon to stay true to it's word. Don't trust the BBC and don't say anything that you are not prepared to hear broadcast on national TV.

Overall, It feels like the justification for the decision to air this interview was put together to support a desire to air it, rather than being a true assessment of whether it was ethically, morally and judicially sound to air the interview.

The BBC may gain viewing figures in the short term and no publiciy is bad publicity supposedly, but it only takes a few bad decisions to destroy a good reputation.

Something I learnt a few years ago was when you get something wrong, apologise - and fully. Anything else is perceived as arrogance.

Would it not have been right and proper to wait a few days and see if Mr Stevens was released without charge before deciding to lynch him 'in the public interest' ?

If he's guilty you're going to muddy the judicial waters. If he's innocent you're going to look like a journalist out to make the most of any given opportunity.

Either way the trust in the BBC is now greatly diminished.

Bad judgement call guys, very bad indeed.

The Beeb's flagrant disregard for common journalist's ethics (and astonishingly self-centered rationalization for breaking their word) makes me damned glad I live 3,000 miles away. One wonders whether any source (other than an atention-seeking one) will ever speak to the Beeb again.

Weasel words to disguise the fact that the BBC effectively lied to Mr Stephens, and sacrificed its journalistic principles on the altar of sensationalism.

"Were you affected by this travesty? Do you have relatives or friends who were affected? Were you there and do you have digital photos you'd like to send us? Email us (we can't spare the weasels)."

I was so relieved that read how so many people care enough to express their views on this issue to the BBC, and they have said just about everything I would say.

Only one word would I add to you, Mr Van-Klaveren: shame.

Bad form BBC. I suggest you research "contempt of court", "off the record" and the difference between "the public is interested in" and "public interest"

BBC News' attempts to justify this are pretty pathetic. You promised that you would not reveal the contents of the interview. That his identity had become known is beside the point.

Woodward and Bernstein would have had a great story if they had revealed the identity of Deep Throat, but they never did in thirty years. A BBC journalist's promise is valid for about two days, apparently.

I am one more person who believes that this decision is absolutely shameful for a medium such as the BBC. I have been berating for years the media in my own country which behave in this un-journalistic fashion, judging and trialling people in public who have not been proven guilty by a court; also publicising material that was entrusted in confidence. I thought that BBC valued integrity and was powerful enough not to compete for ratings at such a low level.

Furthermore, it is not in the interest of the public to make the interview unusable in court, especially since BBC did the right thing in submitting it to the police first.

The "Exclusive" tag on this broadcast was indeed enough to render this blogpost a silvertongued embellishment of the ugly truth.

I think you were wrong to release the interview. 1) You have broken the ethics of journalism by using an interview given for one purpose in a different way. 2) If suspicion is removed from Mr Stephens , then you have broadcast his links to the prostitutes in exactly the way he requested you avoid. 3) If Mr Stephens is brought to trial you have prejudiced the trial by the timing and manner of your release. It inevitably gives the impression that the BBC thinks that this man is guilty of the crime of murder, that you are prepared to break the conditions agreed with him, and that you consider that the interview itself is "in the public interest".

If the BBC receives material on condition that that it will not broadcast, and the BBC agrees, then it should not broadcast material. If it cannot keep this promise then it should make this clear at the start. The only justifiable changes in circumstances are where the individual concerned gives consent or where the BBC is required to do so by law.

In cases like this it is hard to see how the BBC can justify publishing any material after it hands it over to the police. Where the individual is innocent or guilty there is surely at least some speculating and at worst risk of jeopardising a fair trial. Has the BBC herd of the data protection act or the contempt of court act regarding “active” investigations?

Then there are questions of properly representing what the BBC has learnt. "He had much to say about the world of drug dealers and financial pressures in which they lived". So why had other reporters who quoted form the interview failed to mention this? Come on.

The public interest, surely, is in allowing the police to investigate, and trial in a court of law. Of course some of the details were in the public domain, in this case there was a website, but I suspect if all details were in the public domain it would not have been referred to as an ‘exclusive’. Perhaps the BBC should have thought a little longer or a little harder in this case.

I completely agree with the first poster. The audience do not have a 'right' to know when there is a potential investigation. You aren't a commercial corporation, you're a public one, so the public interest should be closer to your heart than the audiences. They are NOT the same thing and after however many decades of operation, the Beeb should know that by now.

I have long supported the excellent work of the BBC and its journalists - it is, more often than not, investigative journalism of the very highest order and consistently outstrips the competition.

However, as an experienced reporter and trainer of reporters, I am disappointed in the decision to show the video of an uncharged suspect in a multiple-murder investigation.

Even a first year journalism student would know that such actions are at extreme risk of breaching the spirit of the Contempt of Court Act and can fatally weaken a prosecution case - damaging the justice system and the reputation of the BBC.

Such decisions will always come down to a calculated risk and I would not expect an experienced editor to always play it safe. But in my opinion you have jumped on a bandwagon too soon and, even as you typed up your reasons for making it, your decision has been outpaced by events.

You will always have my support in your efforts, but I fear on this occasion you have made the wrong decision. I truly hope your attempt at a legal bluff does not get called.

Well, well, well...it looks like the chickens have finally come home to roost !!!
In a previous post, I dared to suggest that Newsnight was the TV version of the tabloids & the BBC R4's Today was the radio version of the tabloids. And I was shouted down by fellow bloggers.
By broadcasting this interview with Tom Stephens, I do believe my assertion was correct all along.
The tabloids published Tom Stephen's identity. But the tabloids have a history of getting it wrong & getting into bother. I hope the BBC does get sued for contempt of court & they had better not use any money from the TV tax to defend themselves in court. If this doesn't prove conclusively that the BBC is not impartial, then I don't know what will.

This is absolutely wrong. It's not just the interview, but the news reports practically gave a brief summary of his life. The information broadcast went FAR beyond the public interest. This reeks of immoral and opportunistic journalism. Think of the effect this will have on the man if he is found innocent.

It is apparant that the only motivation of the BBC was scoring a scoop. objectivly and rationally reporting the news seems to take second place to sensationalism and personal vanity of the news team.

I really do fear that these efforts of the media to drive the police investigation will prejudice any chance of a fair trial and correct conclusion. This all raises echoes of the Washington Sniper enquiry and the circus that evolved round that.

I would have hoped that the BBC would be the calming and moderate force in this, not leading the feeding frenzy!!

Innocent until proven guilty?

The BBC should not be in the business of 'trial by media'.

Whether this man is innocent or guilty of these crimes, he is entitled to a fair hearing. Instead, he is being lynched by a hysterical press. I wouldn't usually include the BBC in that group, but apparently it is so.

What has become of BBC News? Even setting aside the dumbing down over the last few years while you've been competing with Sky, this single instance has shown how low your once highly-regarded organisation is willing to stoop in order to increase its ratings. You have potentially damaged a trial and, in journalistic terms alone, you have betrayed the confidence of a source because YOU deemed the circumstances to have changed. What right do you have to judge that?

The way Mr. Van-Klaveren attempts to explain his decision screams of desperation. You must know you have got this one totally wrong. I am relieved and heartened to see so many posters here who share this opinion.

Utterly shameful.

(PS You say that my email address won't be displayed - can I be totally confident about that?)

This is totally shocking. If an inter