Kay Burley off air for 6 months

This isn't true. London is in Tier 2, and having an indoor gathering with another household (even if it was just one other person) would be illegal.

She broke a sensible and simple law by a massive degree (sitting with 5 other people, and socialising indoors with 9 others) that has public health implications, then gave a misleading apology then let people infer the only breach was going in to a restaurant to use the toilet, and has been rewarded with a 6 month paid holiday.

Sky handled the statement badly and in my view the BBC's handling (which may involve some umming and ahhing) was correct, it was delivered as breaking news - which is what it was. Sky should have done the same, however I don't think they should be unduly criticised for it. The BBC is well versed in covering big stories about itself, Sky isn't so much (apart from perhaps some business news about who owns them) and people at whatever level are fallible. Not everything is a grand masterplan, sometimes it's humans making errors in the moment.

It wasn't: the word "statement" wasn't even uttered. It is quite different to an apology or correction of fact as they aren't referencing something that happened on air: they are reading a corporate statement relating to the management of staff. It's hard to know how integrating a broadcaster's corporate line on a contentious issue into a news script without credit fits into any reasonable interpretation of Ofcom's rules on due impartiality.

I'm not in the "end of the world" camp on this, but it was clearly a lapse in judgement. At the very least it should have been introduced by saying that it was a Sky corporate statement and sticking it up on a slate - though I would argue that on a pure news value judgement, it probably deserved more coverage than that (as shown by the decisions taken by all the other broadcasters).

As others have said, it was the fact it wasn't introduced as a statement that was the issue, it was just read like a normal piece of news

They should have either said it was a statement, or got a reporter to read the statement

Apologies, I should have been clearer: Burley has said the group was at a 'COVID-compliant restaurant', which the press have reported had outdoor tables available. If the restaurant was indeed 'COVID-compliant', it would have had to seat the two tables outside unless it was persuaded they were members of two households (or two households plus one person from each household's support bubble). It isn't clear that they were sitting indoors, and if anything the fact that Sam Washington – who is reported to have been at the dinner – is not taking a leave of absence rather suggests this part of the evening was not the issue in question. It is lawful for up to 6 persons to gather outside in Tier 2 (per Schedule 2, paragraph 2 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020.

My point therefore stands that it has not been established with certainty that she broke the law in this regard (as opposed to the spirit of the law, or guidance), nor that her overall intentions (if not necessarily execution) of the evening were to act legally.


I haven't seen it reported by any reputable organisations that the dinner took place indoors, but if that is the case then I apologise for being mistaken as to the facts.



But again, I ask you what Sky should have done instead? Terminated her contract? I'm at a loss as to how their actions gave rise to any more serious 'punishment' than they received, owing to the employees' legal rights.

Burley and Rigby in the photo of them clutching each other, shows them at what appears to be the bar inside. If you are moving about inside a pub or restaurant you are supposed to wear a mask, and the only valid reason to do so is to go to the loo and arrive/leave. In my local boozers you are simply not permitted to approach the bar for any reason, and there's no need to because table service has to be applied

How long does her contract have left to run? Six months, perhaps?

A demotion at least? Just look at what NBC did to Brian Williams for bending the truth a couple of years ago.

When your credibility as a journalist is affected, it affects the job they’re employed to do. They would be well within their rights to do that.

That picture of Kay and Beth clutching each other was taken in August 2018.

Brian Williams lied about his job, and within his job. It's not as though he simply lied in an interview that he had a dog when he didn't, he fabricated or exaggerated his own reporting of important stories, either in the reporting or in later recalling those reports.

So not only was it within his job, and therefore easier to justify disciplinary action, but it directly cast doubt on his actual reporting skill and accuracy. Kay Burley isn't primarily a reporter, this does not call into question her previous work, and is this is an apparently isolated and limited incident.*


* Although I'd argue she's had many more significant blunders in the past that did or do call into question her journalistic credibility to an extent, but Sky's reluctance to intervene then is relevant to what they can do now.

I did put a disclaimer on that being a possibility yesterday. OK, fair enough then,

Did it get any more coverage on sky apart from when the initial statement was read and a brief mention on the papers?