The scandal - Lab ministers influenced by ex Lab minister for sale, except on the BBC

The problem:
The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches program have caught ex Labour ministers out offering to sell their influence over other Labour ministers. They cite examples of where policies have been changed thanks to such bought influence. One ex Labour minister even describes himself as a taxi for sale. The boasts rely on undue influence over serving ministers.

This story will soon move to investigations against Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis - which will be bad for socialism and the funding of the BBC.
The Challenge
The BBC must report this story, it would be too blatant an example of their left wing bias not to. But equally with a hung parliament in prospect they no longer have to be impartial as they may be able to get Labour ( assisted by the Lib Dems ) back into power.
The Answer
Use the old BBC trick of reporting not the event or its implications in the headline, but Labour's reaction. So go with "Minister condemn...." - making it appear that Labour are acting positively, when in fact its "Ex Labour minister selling their influence over current Labour ministers" ( not not MPs ) that's the scandal.

This is yet another example of the BBC's institutional bias and why it must be abolished as soon as a future Conservative government comes to power. ( Just imagine how the BBC would have treated this if it involved Lord Ashcroft for example. )

Update:

I see the BBC headlines have changed - still the real story isn't being pursued - did Mandelson and Adonis change policy as a favour to ex-Ministers and friends ?

If so its not just the ex-Minister who should be in trouble.

Social Networking: I'm from the government and I'm here to help !

Be afraid, be very afraid. This current government - you know the one that's now one of the largest purchasers of political propaganda advertising is hoping to crush free expression and independent channels of communication on the internet.

The BBC report Tom Watson MP, he of the daft haircut and the bad taste, eyeing up MumsNet. ( Now just typing that fills me with alarm). Here's an extract from the BBC report (underlining is my own):

Mr Watson sees nothing intrusive about the government using open, commercially run sites to dispense advice and information.

"Having 100,000 mums on a social network like NetMums sharing ideas about how you bring up kids or what it's like to give birth can be useful to government because they can talk about the services that they provide.

"Government can be useful to them to give them advice on what's good and what isn't good.

"If 100,000 mums met at Wembley stadium there would be welfare rights advisers, clinicians, midwives, even politicians would get in on the act.

"But when 100,000 mums meet on an information community online like NetMums, you don't get a politician talking to them."

Rough translation => We could boss around far more people by hijacking social networking and gets lots of socialist propaganda out, just as we do with the governments advertising budget. After all how would people know how to run their lives if the government and Labour party didn't tell them ?

Ronald Regan was right.

( How long before someone like Hazel Blears pops up to suggest using National Identity cards to access web sites etc ? It won't be long before the government insists you declare any email addresses or web site aliases you have ).