http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/jc-watch

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/6-questions-pour-le-roi-stephen-pollard

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/what-did-lieberman-actually-say

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/is-editorial-silence-golden

I wrote a lot of words (re the above), and have now received the following brief email from Stehen Pollard, editor of the JC...

"He (al- Mabhouh) was a terrorist and that is how we have described him. That is how we describe Hamas. Indeed I have written elsewhere of the BBC's failure to call terrorists terrorists.
I think on one blog news item he was described as a militant. That should have been in inverted commas, as that is how others do - incorrectly in my view - refer to him.
The responsibility for everything is mine. If you want to have a go at our mistake in not calling him a terrorist, please blame me."

Well let's hope that in future, al-Mabhouh is clearly identified as a "terrorist", and not as a "militant".

The proof of Pollard's pudding, of course, will be in the reading. But Le Roi (the editor) has spoken. The JC must now comply. After all, how can Pollard criticize The BBC, if there are multiple inconsistencies in The JC?