Very disappointed by this. I asked @BBC for a right to reply to counter the very serious allegations made about me in a live interview with @arron_banks last Sunday. This is @bbc's response. 
Interested to hear if media lawyers/editors have a view on this. This is mine.
I don't believe the public interest is served by allowing @arron_banks' lies to stand. I don't believe it's good journalism. And I'm surprised the BBC should rely on such a narrow legal defence that - lawyers help me out - I don't think is even valid
The reason why I push this is the reason I'm pushing all of this all of the time. Sky gave me a right to reply and I got to explain - for SEVEN MINUTES - @arron_banks' links to Russia. And why it matters
This was the first time a British broadcaster had covered the story of how @arron_banks had lied about his multiple meetings with the Russian ambassador. Here it is in @NYtimes in June. But there had been NOT A SINGLE REPORT on this on @BBC.
nyti.ms/2NeuXOW
nyti.ms/2NeuXOW
The point about the right-to-reply is to explain context of why @arron_banks seeks to discredit @observerUK's journalism. And why he made these allegations in response to story about his relationship to the Russian government. And why that story - untold on BBC - needs telling
