When the BBC Politics presenter called me a “mad cat woman” in a late-night tweet, it was far from a one-off..

On November 13, Andrew Neil, the presenter of the BBC’s flagship politics programme described me on Twitter as “Karol Kodswallop” a “mad cat woman”.

This wasn’t a random insult. And it wasn’t a one-off. Neil has followed my investigations into Cambridge Analytica, Vote Leave’s illegal behaviour, Arron Banks’ finances and allegations of Russian interference closely since March.

And since March, he’s made his feelings clear on the subject, retweeting articles that call me a “conspiracy theorist”, retweeting articles from the right-wing blog, Guido, about me, calling the testimony of first-hand witnesses, Chris Wylie and Shahmir Sanni, “hearsay”, and dismissing allegations of Russian interference.

My attempts to raise this with the BBC, both before and after his attack, failed. I wrote to senior executives in August last year because I believed Neil had shown a pattern of behaviour that was clearly politically motivated with regard to me and my reporting and in breach of the BBC’s code on impariality and conflict of interests. I received no reply.

Neil’s behvaiour culminated in him parroting an insult that Arron Banks has used repeatedly against me to his 800,000+ followers. The upshot of this and the BBC’s refusal to investigate my allegations or to censure Neil’s behaviour is that I am now called a “mad cat lady” dozens of times a day on social media, every day.

It also points to a problem that is bigger than just Andrew Neil, that appears systemic. Because I have repeatedly tried to flag concerns to BBC Politics and been repeatedly ignored. In every instance, my attempts to raise concerns with BBC executives has failed. In every instance, it has led to an increase in the number of abusive and misogynistic attacks I receive.

On November 11, 2018, the Andrew Marr show announced that Arron Banks would be appearing as a guest. I tried to flag my concerns to the programme’s senior producers. I feared Banks — who I have been investigating for two years — would use the opportunity of a live television interview to repeat smears and lies he had repeatedly made about me on social media. My concerns were ignored. During the interview, Arron Banks accused me of blackmail and theft. He was not challenged or corrected. My request for a right to reply was turned down by both by the programme’s producer and his senior manager. My complaint was ruled unfounded.

On November 16, I learned BBC NewsWatch intended to broadcast Andrew Neil’s tweet. I contacted the programme’s presenter and editor — who is also the editor of the Marr Show — to explain why the tweet was abusive and to ask them not to show it without my response that framed it within its political context. Again, my concerns were ignored. The tweet was broadcast to the BBC’s global audience.

On January 2, the Financial Times published an interview with Tony Hall, the director general of the BBC, in which he erroneously told the Financial Times that Andrew Neil had apologised for his tweet. The Financial Times retracted the statement and issued a correction. I asked Lord Hall to do the same and explained why it was important to do so. He has declined to do so.

Lord Hall has said that the BBC must have zero-tolerance approach to abuse towards journalists. Yet the BBC’s actions have amplified the daily abuse that I receive. Its reporting system does not work. It’s not just me it has ignored but the same or similar complaints from hundreds of other viewers. Arron Banks’ Marr interview received more complaints than any other BBC programme in November.

It is a fact that it is women and minorities who are disproportionately affected by online abuse. And unless this is properly investigated and understood, the risk of this happening to others — particularly other women — remains.

Lord Hall has not replied to my letter. Instead, Gavin Allen, the head of BBC News output, responded to say the BBC is fully accountable, Andrew Neil is “a fine journalist” and that I’d made sweeping generalisations with no evidence.

On January 20, I sent him this evidence, published here. I have received no reply.

March 22, 2018

Four days after the Observer breaks the Cambridge Analytica story that dominated global news headlines all week and had seen calls from Zuckerberg to testify to Congress, Andrew Neil makes his first tweet on the subject.

He promoted an article in the Spectator to his 800,000+ followers that stated that the Observer’s reporting on Cambridge Analytica was “straight out of the David Icke school of political thought”.

“It’s hard to think of any other recent journalistic expose that has been as overcooked and overblown as the Observer’s feverish claims about Cambridge Analytica,” it said.

March 27, 2018

Christopher Wylie gives evidence to MPs and hands over documentary evidence that is later published by parliament. Andrew Neil dismisses it as “hearsay”.

Note: on the basis of this evidence, the ICO issued Facebook with its maximum possible fine. The global consequences of Wylie’s revelations are still unfolding but include cases being brought by the FTC, 38 US attorney generals and form part of Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation into Trump-Russia collusion.

March 27, 2018

Andrew Neil clarifies that he is not just dismissing Christopher Wylie’s evidence. He is also dismissing the Observer’s year-long investigation on the subject. He also dismisses the substantial documentary evidence submitted to parliament and the electoral commission.

March 29, 2018

Alex Wickham, a former Breitbart journalist, then working for the right-wing blog site, Guido Fawkes, published one of multiple articles attacking the Observer’s reporting. Andrew Neil retweets it with his own commentary. Arron Banks likes the tweet.

April 1, 2018

Andrew Neil retweets a clarification the Observer published at the request of AggregateIQ’s lawyers. Neil declares it a “dagger to the heart of the investigation”.

April 2, 2018

Neil clarifies his position. The Observer’s reporting, led by myself, is “ideologically driven” rather than a “simple search for truth.”

Neil dismisses alternative explanations:

I explain to Neil the background for the “correction”. He ignores my tweets.

Neil retweets two further attacks on my reporting by Guido Fawkes’ employees and links to their articles:

The “correction” the Observer made was on the basis of a request from AIQ’s lawyers. It proved nothing other than that AIQ’s lawyers were pushing back against our claims. The same edition of the newspaper carried another piece about AIQ in which we made further allegations of their relationship with Cambridge Analytica. The fact “corrected” was confirmed as true by the Information Commissioner’s Office in its interim report into the use of data analytics for political purposes:

April 4, 2018

I was unclear what was motivating Andrew Neil’s repeated attacks on our reporting. This was when I looked into his declared interests. I found that Arron Banks in his memoir of Bad Boys of Brexit wrote that Andrew Neil invited him to attend the Addison Club — a right-wing dining society he founded — where he suggested he might ‘find a fair few in our membership sympathetic to your case and even a few with chequebooks.’

I noted this in a tweet and that Neil was also the chairman of the Spectator, where Mary Wakefield, Dom Cummings wife, is the deputy editor.

The Observer had published documentary evidence that had also been handed to the Electoral Commission that showed that Cummings was implicated in an alleged breach of UK electoral laws. The Electoral Commission has since ruled that Vote Leave did break the law and has passed the file to the Met police.

Neil replied with reference to my ‘conspiracist connections’. He doesn’t say what these are or why they are ‘conspiracist’.

April 7, 2018

Neil clarifies his position. He says ‘he’ does not employ Cummings’ wife. This appears to be semantics. The Spectator employs Cummings’ wife. Neil is chair of the Spectator.

Neil states that he is ‘aware of no illegal activities’. This was after multiple reports in the Observer based on Shahmir Sanni’s eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence he passed to the Electoral Commission that showed illegal activity.

Sanni has been fully vindicated by the Electoral Commission’s findings. Neil has never commented on this finding, asked a question of any of his guests about it, retweeted any news article about it, or retracted or apologised for his previous remarks.

And again…

And again…

April 14, 2018

Neil dismisses the suggestion Russia had any interest in interfering in the referendum.

Jul 2, 2018

Neil makes the first of a series of extraordinary tweets about a Washington Post article about Arron Banks.

The background to this is a series of articles in the Observer about Arron Banks’ covert relationship with the Russian government:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/08/revealed-leaveeu-campaign-met-russian-officials-as-many-as-11-times

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/16/arron-banks-nigel-farage-leave-brexit-russia-connection

This series of tweets is the only reference Neil has made online or on any of his BBC programmes to these revelations which were published by: the Observer, the Sunday Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, New York magazine, Esquire and the New York Review of Books. It has subsequently been followed up by reports by John Sweeney on Newsnight.

The evidence has since been published by the select committee for the department of culture, media and sport.

Neil dismisses the report, the evidence and the entire story on bizarre grounds. He says he thought it would ‘contain evidence of Leavers sending the Kremlin FBI documents. It didn’t. Please don’t waste my time again.’

In fact, the Observer had published another story that did reveal Andy Wigmore had sent FBI documents to the Russian embassy:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/16/leave-eu-russia-arron-banks-andy-wigmore

I repeatedly tried to make Neil aware of this but he ignored me and the evidence.