A BBC Radio 4 presenter has been criticised for asking what some have described as “irresponsible” and “poorly judged” questions about cyclists during a segment on the recent revisions to the Highway Code.
On Saturday’s edition of the Today programme, the long-running news and current affairs show, Mishal Husain interviewed Kevin Fong, a doctor and television presenter, and racing driver and motoring journalist Rebecca Jackson about last week’s updates to the Highway Code, which have been the subject of widespread – and often divisive – press coverage.
While both guests generally demonstrated the balance and nuance often lacking in the mainstream media’s coverage of the changes, Husain generated some online controversy by twice asking Jackson: “What annoys you about cyclists?”
These questions prompted a social media backlash, with users taking to Twitter to claim that Husain was encouraging “dangerous driving behaviour” by “trying to push the cycling hate button”.
> Daily Mail publishes “error-strewn” Richard Littlejohn column attacking cyclists
The presenter began the interview by asking Fong if he had noticed any differences on the road since the Highway Code had been implemented and if he had “encountered instances on a daily basis that are dangerous or at the very least irritating and insensitive”.
Fong replied that the principle behind the changes – that the most vulnerable road users should be protected by the least vulnerable – makes sense and that the roads are dangerous for those “who don’t know what they’re doing, so everyone has a responsibility to ensure the safety of cyclists and other road users.”
However, when racing driver Jackson pointed out that her family – like many across the country – cycle as well as drive, Husain asked her: “Be honest, what is it that annoys you, irritates you, drives you mad with cyclists on the road? There must be some.”
“The only thing I do find a little bit irritating is when it’s four-abreast on a country road,” Jackson replied. “It’s great fun to cycle next to your friends and it’s great to have a chat with them.
“The problem is, that really does irritate road users and motorists quite a bit,” she laughed.
“Well, that’s largely out in the countryside,” Husain said. “Though you do see it quite a bit in cities as well, usually at the weekend, often groups of men I have to say.”
> BBC corrects Nick Robinson’s comment that “you cannot use your car” in a low traffic neighbourhood
Trying to maintain his focus on the Highway Code itself, Fong emphasised that the new measures would help protect cyclists and pedestrians, and that improved and safer infrastructure, as well as behavioural change on the roads, was essential to achieving that goal.
Despite the commendable balance of the two guests, Husain continued her line of questioning, asking Jackson: “Apart from the four-abreast, what also drives you mad when you’re driving?”
Jackson, to her credit, once again tried to dodge the question and emphasised that “it is our duty as road users, whether we are a cyclist or a motorist – clearly the hierarchy is important to keep everybody safe – it’s our duty to look out for each other and be kind to each other.”
> Press misrepresents Highway Code changes – just days before they come into force
The segment was heavily criticised online, with Kirsty Lewin taking to Twitter to remind the BBC that “cyclists are killed on our roads” and called on the Today programme to “do better”.
You could have done an equally positive story on cycling this morning in your segment on the #Highwaycode on #R4Today – but instead you blew it and encouraged further aggressive driving towards cyclists. Cyclists are killed on our roads. #DoBetter https://t.co/OdEuSlY4sf
— Kirsty Lewin (@KirstyLewin) February 5, 2022
Another user wrote: “Your item on the Highway Code was poorly judged. The changes explicitly try to improve the dangerous driving that leads to shocking statistics for deaths and injury. It’s vital drivers understand how improved behaviour can change that.
“Trivialising the issue with giggly answers to the twice-repeated question “what annoys you about cyclists?” is adding to the idea that those riding bikes deserve to be bullied or disregarded by those driving high powered vehicles weighing several tonnes.”
“In the interest of ‘balance’ did the presenter also ask a cyclist ‘what annoys you about motorists?’ (‘the fact that some of them appear to want to kill me’ would be one possible answer)”, wrote Jon Sparks. “Or was it just a really stupid and irresponsible question?”
Kay Wagland argued that the segment highlighted the “clear assumption that cyclists are annoying. It didn’t ask a cyclist what annoys them about car driving. The Highway Code’s hierarchy of responsibility and vulnerability of highway users is key. Cyclists are at much higher risk and don’t damage our streets & climate.”
Another user pointed out the media’s tendency to “pile on to one of the solutions to excessive, unjust and unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. Imagine how powerful it could be if BBC Radio 4 had asked, ‘what do you like best about cyclists?’”
Responding to a tweet which claimed she was “trying to push the cycling hate button”, Husain replied: “No! I am a cyclist.”
The updates to the Highway Code, which came into effect last weekend, have filled many column inches over the last month, with a number of news outlets running controversial articles with headlines such as ‘The day cyclists took over the roads’ and ‘Bike lane Britain… the Great Leap Backwards’.
Last week, Cycling UK called for a long-term public awareness campaign from the government to help produce a “mindset shift” on British roads and to counteract misleading and divisive reports in the media. The charity says it will take years to fully enforce the revisions to the Highway Code and change “entrenched driving behaviour”.







-1024x680.jpg)
















82 thoughts on ““What drives you mad about cyclists?” Radio 4 presenter criticised for “irresponsible” questions during Highway Code segment”
BBC institutionally anti
BBC institutionally anti-cyclist – who knew?
BBC institutionally far too
BBC institutionally far too big for their boots. Bring on the scrapping of the license fee, I for one will not pay to view it.They are power hungry, and try to force their biased one sided reportingon their license fee payers.
Largely disagree: the BBC
Largely disagree: the BBC needs reform and better regulation on several fronts, but to encourage the scrapping of the licence fee is to do away with one of the few remaining institutions Britain should be rightly proud of and bring in another commercial TV provider.
Should be rightly proud of? I
Should be rightly proud of? I agree, but the BBC has lost it’s way. The DG of the BBC warned last week that services would suffer as a result of the fee freeze. How about they pay their big headed presenters a bit less? Half a million for the annoying Laura Kuenssberg? Really? Over a million for the doubly annoying super leftie Zoe Ball, who hasn’t a hope of being anywhere as good as the late great Terry Wogan. Google BBC pay and see how many reporters are on the half a million mark. It’s obscene, and easy for them to pay ridiculous sums when they are handed huge sums of cash each year. No, let them become pay per view, and earn their money.
.
.
Is there anything else in your life where you are forced to pay – on pain of imprisonment – for something that you don’t consume, don’t want, don’t agree with?
.
No. thought not.
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Take a look at your next payslip. But sit down, it might come as a shock…..
Like Council Tax to various
Like Council Tax to various layers of local bureaucracy?
biker phil wrote:
This aspect of the BBC is really annoying. Defunding it won’t improve that, rather lose the chance of any improvement as it then chases ratings even more than it does now. We’ll also lose the staggering amount of content which is invaluable precisely because it’s only possible with a publicly funded model.
BBC is facking annoying. The only thing I can think of that would be more annoying is not having it
Defund the ‘news’ department
Defund the ‘news’ department then and keep the rest.
Public funding hasn’t kept the BBC unbiased, if anything it’s just subsidised the car industry’s PR department.
I used to be proud of the BBC but since that fabricated piece that blamed cyclists for making London the most congested city (rather than the fact it was the biggest post-lockdown city), and the fact it waited weeks to quietly half-correct the article, I can’t see the difference between it and any other of the mouth-foaming outrage porn tabloids.
I complained about that story
I complained about that story. After weeks and weeks I received a reply. As expected they wouldn’t admit they were wrong. This is their response.
Thank you for getting in touch about our article about the campaign by celebrity solicitor Nick Freeman (nicknamed Mr Loophole) for a crackdown on nuisance cycling.
Some readers asked why we had covered his petition as a news story. They also questioned the headline and felt the article was biased against cyclists.
We do not cover every petition however we felt this one was newsworthy and topical. Having reached 10,000 signatures, it would require a government response. We quoted Nick Freeman as being motivated by a desire to “improve safety and create harmonious shared road space”. Although we did not include comments from cyclists in this particular article, we do regularly cover issues such as the dangers faced by cyclists, cycling’s popularity during lockdown and public debate over cycle schemes. So cyclists’ views are regularly reflected on the news website.
Some readers questioned the accuracy of the headline “Mr Loophole: Petition for cycling crackdown gathers momentum” and asked why it was couched in the present tense given that the petition had closed. In fact, we often use the present tense in headlines to demonstrate immediacy and this is normal journalistic practice. The article was about not just the petition but the campaign behind it. The phrase “gathers momentum” could therefore be taken as having wider relevance.
We are sorry if some readers did not appreciate how we covered this story. As a service to readers, we have added an update to our article linking to the government’s subsequent response to the petition which spells out the rationale for rejecting the petition’s proposals.
Thank you again for contacting us to make your views known. All feedback from readers is appreciated and shared with senior editors so that they are aware of audience concerns.
Kind regards,
BBC Complaints Team
Car Delenda Est wrote:
We won’t get a choice about what gets privatised and what gets kept. We would lose it all, sold off for a song to Tory donors (by one method or another) – we’ve seen this pattern before, and we seem to fall for it every time.
Let’s see how the standard of news fairs then….
.
.
Just like they’ve done with the Localised Sickness Monopoly (that’s NHS to you), yeah?
.
Oh, hang on ….
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Thanks for the input FB. I must confess, I’m finding t difficult to work out whether this is sarcasm, or indeed work out your point at all…
Captain Badger wrote:
The BBC is a dinosaur and needs to be either scrapped or defunded. I understand your argument about them producing some quality programmes, but nowadays the barrier to producing tv/video is a lot lower. Seems to me that the BBC is simply another “jobs for the boys” organisation and I’d much rather not be paying for it when there’s lots of truly independent creators that I’d rather fund.
They seem to be riding their reputation as being impartial to push agendas. Why should I be forced to pay money to give Farage a platform and treat cyclists as a scourge?
(Also, Doctor Who has gone downhill)
When did the BBC produce a
When did the BBC produce a cracking comedy programme? Thay can’t any more because they are so Right On and lefty, they are incapable of producing anything funny any more. Comedy is about pushing the boundaries, they are too scared to do that now in case they offend anyone.
Fawlty Towers, Only Fools And Horses, The Young Ones, Bottom etc, they would not get made today.
Even Frankie Boyle has gone all woke now!
“Super lefty”
“Super lefty”
“Right on”
“Woke”
“Can’t offend anyone any more”
Go on, call somebody a “snowflake”, then we’ll have the complete Piers-Morgan-lazy-right-wing-manufactured-outrage Bingo card ?
Also amusing is the claim
Also amusing is the claim that the listed programmes would not get made now as the BBC is ‘super lefty’. Fawlty Towers aside, they were written by the super lefties he’s whining about.
markieteeee wrote:
The beeb’s not without sin or issue for me but I’ve never understood how it can simultaneously be the establishment and a den of lefties of the chattering classes / fount of anarcho-communist propaganda. Unless this was a cunning plan by the rulers to flush out then divert these types into a place where they’re both harmless and easily monitored?
I guess we’ve that to thank for coralling subversives such as Gyles Brandreth, Monty Don etc.
markieteeee wrote:
You can’t get much further left than Alexei Sayle in The Young Ones
You can’t get much further
You can’t get much further left than Alexei Sayle in The Young Ones
I recommend Alexei Sayle’s excellent Imaginary Sandwich Bar series on BBC Sounds. That’s good modern humour on the BBC!
Definitely recommended.
Definitely recommended.
.
.
As opposed to the lazy woky-lefty-libby-rightonie-antiBrexity stuff from the likes of you?
.
.
.
biker phil wrote:
Neither would we want them to be. They were of their time and not of a great deal of relevance now, no matter how much old farts like you and me look at them with affection – does your Granny always tell you that the old ones are the best? Fleabag could certainly not have been made then , unless that’s too woke and lefty for you. Perhaps the woke and leftyness is testing your boundaries, and it’s uncomfortable…
The reason those things were good is cos they, were new, shocking, iconoclastic.
Things change, who knew…..
hawkinspeter wrote:
I disagree. The breadth of the BBC and the services it provides are far wider than the main flagship consumables. Its reach is also far beyond these shores.
Yes it could be scrapped or defunded. Not really sure how our lives will be better, but I think we will lose many of the things we value without even realising it, and the world will be a poorer place.
Neither will it solve the crap reporting on the environment or cycling – it may possibly make it worse
Disappointing from the BBC.
Disappointing from the BBC. Usual outrage-generation article from road.cc – I would have been just as happy not knowing about any of this.
What are you doung here?
What are you doing here?
I thought someone would say
I’ve been sucked in by the outrage-generating clickbait, and I’m very disappointed with myself.
How about you?
HarrogateSpa wrote:
I’m reading this out of interest as objective reporting on media treatment of cycling related questions and the reactions to it by a specialist cycling news site.
Cant see any clickbait or outrage-generating.
Gotta say I view the BBC
Gotta say I view the BBC piece as the outrage porn and the road.cc piece as in the public interest, it’s important to call out the media for amplifying harmful messages, but I guess that’s where our biases differ.
Playing devil’s advocate for
Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, is it possible that Hussain had been told to try and get responses that “somebody” thought would appeal to what they thought would be a typical R4 listener? Rather than her being specifically velophobic, or the BBC being institutionally velophobic, I mean? Might be that they just think that their typical listeners are, like LBC assuming that their typical listener is a racist homophobic cab driver…
“So Mr Carr, what is it that
“So Mr Carr, what is it that annoys you, irritates you and makes you mad about gypsies?”
I suspect that he missed a
I suspect that he missed a memo on what is considered to be acceptable topics for humour nowadays…
brooksby wrote:
Not sure there’s ever been a time that the genocide of the Roma people has been considered an acceptable topic for humour.
Rendel Harris wrote:
1973, maybe?
Anyway, I was trying to play devil’s advocate and clearly misfired.
Apologies, all.
Can I have what you’ve been
Can I have what you’ve been smoking?
.
.
Can I smoke what you’ve been having?
.
Cyclists; what drives you mad
Cyclists; what drives you mad about the BBC? Is it their continued blatant bias against cyclists? Is it their refusal to admit that cycling is a mode of transport? Is it their forty year helmet promotion campaign?
The fact they charge me £150
The fact they charge me £150 a year to pay for all of the above.
Fingers crossed they scrap
Fingers crossed they scrap the license fee, because I will not pay for it. It’s bad enough being forced to pay for their bile.
Yep, I’m hoping that it’s
Yep, I’m hoping that it’s scrapped and they have to go subscription. 95% of my tv viewing is streamed, so i could stop the direct debit but am forced to keep it for the 2hours of Channel 4 or 5 that I watch a week
‘Be honest, what is it that
‘Be honest, what is it that annoys you, irritates you, drives you mad with Muslim drivers on the road? There must be some.”
‘Well, that’s largely out in the countryside,” Husain said. “Though you do see it quite a bit in cities as well, usually at the weekend, often groups of Muslims I have to say.”
How does that sound Husain? pretty offensive, eh? Don’t single out minority, vulnerable groups – it’s ugly.
Disappointing irresponsible
Disappointing irresponsible behaviour by Kirsty Lewin (who?) and road.cc – trying to drag Judi Dench into this furore she had nothing to do with.
.
LOL! Like it!
.
.
LOL! Like it!
.
Is there some hidden morse
Is there some hidden morse code in your replies ?
-. — – — ..- -.-. …. –
-. — – — ..- -.-. …. – — … .- -.–
Dash it, put a stop to it;
Dash it, put a stop to it; triple dash it!
Surprised he doesnt hammer
Surprised he doesnt hammer out all his replies in CAPS. Crafty keyboard yankers.
Quote:
Why exactly do you “have to say”? In what way is the gender of a rider relevant? Would group rides be more acceptable if they were mixed or women only (which incidentally, around popular cycling areas of London like Richmond Park, they very often are)? This is straight out of the Garbage at Large playbook, pathetic gender-based demonisation as if a group of men on bicycles are the bullies on the roads, not the people who take up the same space as six cyclists on their own whilst operating a polluting and potentially lethal machine.
I listened to it live and to
I listened to it live and to me what was striking was that the question was repeated. To be fair, Jackson didn’t really bite, although she opened the door for Husain to throw in about she sees groups of men riding four-abreast around cities (usually at weekends, of course). Not my borough but I find it pretty hard to believe that she sees this regularly around Camden. Husain’s attempt to bait the motoring journalist into saying something nasty about cyclists maybe have fallen a bit flat but she could not have made her intention clearer.
I ride through Camden
I ride through Camden regularly on Sunday mornings en route to having another despairing attempt at the 45+ age group KOM on Swains Lane, one sees quite a few other cyclists heading the same way but I can’t ever recall seeing a large group round that neck of the woods. I suspect Ms.Husain might see three or four cyclists in the space of a couple of hundred metres, or maybe a small group waiting in an advanced stop zone at the lights, and somehow creates a four-abreast group in her own mind.
I missed this one, sounds
I missed this one, sounds more like rather desperate and shabby journalism. Was it an audition for GB News?
Yep, that about sums it up!
Yep, that about sums it up!
I would rather watch the news
I would rather watch the news on GB News than the completely biased British Brainwashing Corporation.
biker phil wrote:
At least they’re equal opportunities biased. Both left and right, brexiters and remainers, climate activists and deniers, etc etc, all report that the BBC is biased towards the other side…..
Not sure that the same can be said for GBN
.
.
Have you ever, actually – you know – watched GB News?
.
If you had, you couldn’t possibly sustain such biased comments.
.
I have, its for toxic
I have, its for toxic brainless halfwitted racist gammons. Damn them all to hell.
And this is today’s fun and
And this is today’s fun and games……
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/feckless-cyclist-mocks-new-highway-26150037
Just pointed out to several commentators on Facebook….. In the clip that is generating all the outrage….. there are 19 cyclists behaving perfectly sensibly.
almost word for word copy
almost word for word copy from the Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/17551087/cyclist-angers-motorists-takes-selfie-on-the-road/ and the Daily Mail though they are doing that weird The Sun says style of reporting for it.
but I mean “feckless” is quite an usual adjective for three independent journalists to have hit upon, dont you think…and all three articles claim the guy riding the bike is taking “full advantage of new rules to ride in the centre of the road”.
Ill ignore they mean lane anyway, but why are they claiming these are new rules at all, weve always been able to ride centrally.
Awavey wrote:
I could take a leaf out of Beetlejuice’s book….. (sarcasm alert)
It’s quite handy how the driver sat for so long behind the cyclist, despite multiple opportunities for them to pass the cyclist. It’s quite hand how the driver seemed to have a dashcam….. and it’s quite handy how the cyclist managed to complete virtually every single bingo call in one sitting.
I mean it’s really convienient that one cyclist did all of that in front of a car driver with a dash cam who wouldn’t overtake.
As soon as I saw that video I
As soon as I saw that video I thought “fake!” Apart from anything else, I can’t think of a single London taxi driver who wouldn’t have kept up a furious running commentary on “Would you look at this muppet?” lines, who wouldn’t have hooted, and who wouldn’t have taken one of the several opportunities to overtake. I’d lay good money it was staged.
Of course if it isn’t, it proves absolutely bugger all and has nothing to do with the new highway code rules, any more than cyclist camera footage of a drunk driver being an idiot would.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You make some good points – my first thought was that the ‘selfie’ taking cyclist is actually taking a photo of the taxi driver that is tailgating him – perhaps following some earlier incident which the taxi driver or the Mirror have chosen not to share.
Awavey wrote:
I think they’re implying that under the old rules, motorists would just drive straight over cyclists and now they’re no longer allowed to do that
Dr Kevin Fong, is a well
Dr Kevin Fong, is a well respected clinician & broadcaster, who has first hand experience as part of an air ambulance team who will have treated cyclists injured by or crushed under lorries and other vehicles in cities.
maybe Mishal should have listened to his piece on cycling and the city to do best to research these topics more first https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b03pjfj3
I heard this live. It was
I heard this live. It was shocking. It was the very first question Mishal asked. She then continued to try to get an anti-cycling comment. It was like listening to someone trying to start a fight in a pub, but finding a couple of really nice people who agreed on everything. Incompetent, thoughtless trash journalism.
The BBC using cyclists vs.
The BBC using cyclists vs. motorists is not much worse than the right using East Europeans when they can’t use race any more, or comedians using ginger people… my ex-wife was ginger and didn’t find being the new substitute for racism very funny.
So the “I am a cyclist.” card
So the “I am a cyclist.” card has been played.
Just wondering, Mishal Husain, what is it you really hate about yourself?
Whet brings out that visceral disgust in very being when you (might) choose not to use your unnecessarily large motor vehicle?
ktache wrote:
The presenter is not “Mr Husain”
My apologies.
My apologies.
Thank you for the correction. Edited.
I have made an official
I have made an official complaint to BBC. Usually love Mishal Husain but she went right down in my estimation. Lazy, thoughtless, clickbaity
It’s this sort of bile that
It’s this sort of bile that encourages the van driver today to ignore the 1.5-metre rule (try less than 50cms) and then brake check me after I gesticulated (no words used) before stopping at the entrance to a roundabout and screaming abuse – I just stared at him. Unfortunately, my video camera’s not working otherwise that would have gone straight to Surrey Police…oh wait, they do nothing anyway (despite Roadcc having some sort of stupid love-in).
Sadly you are wasting your
Sadly you are wasting your time. I have lost count of the times I have complained to the BBC. They always send back a garbled response which says they were correct.
biker phil wrote:
As one of their most famous reporters said, the BBC’s complaints process exists solely to exonerate them.
Yep, I did a series of
Yep, I did a series of complaints in a variety of forms and never got one to admit that they were at fault (political, simple factual errors, outright lies). The complaints system is a defence mechanism, not a correction or learning system. When they are shown to be wrong, what they do is they refer to an apology made, determine that that is the problem solved and therefore the complaint has no merit.
It is interesting to see the way they summarise their complaints, and recording an apology as a rejected complaint means that their score for valid complaints is a lot better than it should be. They also are the final determiners of whether a complaint is valid, so again adjust their view accordingly.
.
.
Agree. In my experience, poor organisations (such as Al Beeba) think that if they can ‘explain’ / justify a shortcoming, then that shortcoming / error / mistake does not in fact exist.
.
Happilly, such organisation usually die in the end.
.
It’s great to see that Al Beeba is slowly killing itself.
.
.
.
Al Beeba is never (EVER) wrong.
And on those few occasions when it really is wrong – well, see Rule 1. above!
.
biker phil wrote:
At which point, you can complain to Ofcom.
.
.
Flintshire Boy
.
You fired off all those replies
.
But didn’t respond to anyone
.
Why is that ?
Reply “Flintshire Boy”:
Reply “Flintshire Boy”:
In winter mist no echo
Wonder why that is?
I made an official complaint.
I made an official complaint. Here is there ignorant, patronising and wholly inadequate response. I’m angry and depressed;
Thank you for contacting us regarding Radio 4’s ‘Today’, broadcast on 05 February.
We note your concerns about the programme.
Mishal Husain heard from Rebecca Jackson and Kevin Fong about changes to the Highway Code.
In stating “Cyclists are allowed to travel two abreast.”, Mishal was referring specifically to Rule 66. Whilst it previously stated “never ride more than two abreast”, it was not explicitly stated that you could ride two abreast and as such was open to, often incorrect, interpretation with the rule not making clear, in no uncertain terms, “You can ride two abreast”. This was acknowledged by British Cycling e.g.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20220127-Highway-Code-%E2%80%93-Riding-two-abreast-0
In asking Rebecca Jackson, “Be honest. What is it that does annoy you, irritate you, drive you mad even with cyclists on the road? There must be some?”, Mishal was simply posing a light-hearted question to someone who is both a cyclist and motorist, previously stating “There’s a lot of overlap in my family, because we cycle and we drive and that’s the thing, there are a lot of drivers who are also cyclists”.
It’s worth noting that both Rebecca Jackson and Kevin Fong took the questions in the manner they were intended, laughing collectively throughout, however we appreciate you may continue to feel that Mishal’s line of questioning was inappropriate with the potential to cause conflict among road users.
We do value your feedback about this. All complaints are sent to senior management and we’ve included your points in our overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback and ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future content.
Thanks again for getting in touch.
Kind regards,
Andrew Gilfillan
BBC Complaints Team
THEIR!
THEIR!
Well at least the BBC is more
Well at least the BBC is more honest than the hate-filled Grundian so they’d never just pull some poorly researched crypto documentary without putting their hands up and saying sorry:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/10/bbc-cryptocurrency-documentary-pulled-from-air-at-last-minute
The BBC swiftly said it had withdrawn the show but did not make any further comment on its editorial checks. An accompanying online article, which had featured prominently on the BBC News homepage, was also deleted without explanation shortly after the Guardian raised questions. Hassan has also been approached for comment.
Archived BBC article: https://web.archive.org/web/20220209031903/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-60289028