Campbell accused the BBC of 'weaselly words'

Richard Sambrook's reply has been read to me. It confirms that the BBC broadcast a story that was hugely damaging to the integrity of the government and the prime minister without knowing that story to be true and without checking whether it was true or not.

It confirms our central charge they do not have a shred of evidence to justify their lies broadcast many times on BBC outlets that we deliberately exaggerated and abused British intelligence and so misled Parliament and the public.

The allegations were outrageous and so is Mr Sambrook's reply. If the BBC is now saying its journalism is based on the principle they can report what any source says, then BBC standards are now debased beyond belief.

It means the BBC can broadcast anything and take responsibility for nothing.

The story was a lie. It is a lie. Every day the BBC continues in its defence of the indefensible, it damages itself even more Alastair Campbell

I asked Mr Sambrook some very straightforward questions. He has not provided straightforward answers because he knows that this story is not true and that his journalist made no effort to check its veracity.

I don't want 12 pages of weaselly words, sophistry and a defence of unethical journalism.

Far better would be a 12-word apology that says `The BBC allegations were wholly false and we apologise sincerely for them'.

The story was a lie. It is a lie. Every day the BBC continues in its defence of the indefensible, it damages itself even more.

I am a huge admirer of the BBC which is responsible for some of the finest journalism and journalists in the world.

But its reputation is being undermined by its institutional failure ever to admit it is wrong.

I will reply in detail to Mr Sambrook's letter after the weekend. In the meantime, I urge him to understand the government will not let this matter drop until an apology is delivered.