I didn't say it stopped them. I know it's possible for them to do it.

I said they should stop doing it. It's completely impossible to be even remotely impartial reporting yourself. Isn't that obvious?

No, it’s totally non-obvious to me that this would be the case. It seems frankly ridiculous that you would think they shouldn’t - particularly when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest partiality in this case.

The BBC news organisation often reports on statements or events affecting themselves or other parts of the organisation. Most high-quality news sources do the same. If anything, I’d actually expect them to be taking even more care than normal to avoid bias when they do so.

I disagree I’d prefer they recuse themselves, like any other professional with a potential conflict of interest would.

You said they "should let other people report on stories that involve them", implying that somehow they could stop that. Bit of a blurry sentence.

> It's completely impossible to be even remotely impartial reporting yourself. Isn't that obvious?

No. It depends on the organisation. In the BBC's case, I'd say the opposite is true.

‘Should let them’ as in ‘leave it to them’ not ‘should permit them.’