With so many programmes being made these days by independent production companies, their employees, or any freelancers they use, are not going to be bound by the BBC's requirements. I guess though that the companies may well insert requirements into their own contracts, as without them, they run the risk of not getting the work.

With the freelancers it must be a balancing act in which a presenter is obligated whilst actually working for the BBC, but is otherwise free to say whatever they wish.

It's only the direct employees, like Edwards, who would be restricted.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech - technically you are correct and yes impartial views are what we want.
However I don't believe that opposite views to his are pulled and that is my issue here.
If it suits their underlying left wing liberal views they let it go but if it doesn't - as in this case - they tug it publicly.
It needs to be fair on all sides and it isn't.

That yours is a commonly held perception of the right is merely confirmation of your own bias, because those on the left believe the precise opposite.

The idea that there is any kind of "their" involved is obvious nonsense. The BBC's employees will hold a mixed bag of views, which we can only speculate about because they not only don't have to reveal them, they are obliged not to. That is true at all levels. You may well be right that those in the front line will tend to be more left leaning than right, but those in senior management and at Board level? Let alone the many backroom administrators.

The point though is that the BBC have a charter which demands impartiality from all, and this is fiercely defended.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wasn't he disciplined?

In any case presenters are only human and sometimes reactions are spontaneous. Recorded content would be edited out, but that cannot be done when live. Laughing at Yaxley-Lennon seems a pretty mild reaction to me. Paxman has raised his eyebrows at, and asked difficult question of, many people from both the left and right in the past. Y-L was given a platform to express his views, that is more than enough, surely?

I remember Andrew Neil interviewing Alex Jones of InfoWars. Jones was spouting some really nonsensical conspiracy theories, which Neil reacted to with incredulity. Frankly spoken, the viewers would have been dismayed had he not done so. Neil was polite, but firm. Jones walked out.

Remaining impartial is a primary asset of the BBC. Not reacting to self-evidently spurious claims isn't.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That Yaxley-Lennon was given any airtime at all is evidence he was "taken seriously". Without knowing what caused Paxman to laugh, it's difficult to know if he was being impartial. If he laughed because he expressed genuine concern about the welfare of vulnerable young girls and suggested that not enough was being done to investigate the grooming gangs, then he probably wasn't. If he laughed at one of Y-L's more outrageous claims, that's just a normal reaction. Impartiality isn't involved. Context matters.

What does "being impartial" demand of the BBC? For me it means ensuring both sides of an argument get a fair hearing and not offering your own judgement. That though does not mean tolerating unacceptable behaviour, not calling out hypocrisy, nonsensical, irrelevant or dangerous comments.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Did the same with the barking mad NRA spokesman who just shouted over the questions and wouldn't let Neill get a word in.