What is the BBC playing at (2)?

When the BBC does stuff like the Brand-Ross prank call, you know that rock bottom has been hit.
What was most interesting in the coverage I've seen is that although there have been thus far 10 000 complaints, the younger generation phoning in to Radio 1 seem generally supportive.
The answer as to what is going on is all too simple. Brand and Ross know exactly to whom they are appealing: the generation that happy-slaps. For that is exactly what it was: it was public, on air happy-slapping. They are appealing to the generation that thinks nothing of dropping litter and beating up policemen who ask for it to be picked up: for Brand's defending himself by saying it was funny indicates that he clearly thinks he did nothing wrong, and it's the rest of us who are being pompous by standing by common standards of decency.
Common standards of decency brings us ultimately to the point: common standards of decency flow ultimately from shared convictions concerning right and wrong. And whether it's Roger Bolton (see previous post) or Brand and Ross, common standards of decency and their religious underpinning are what is under attack.
If either Mr Brand or Mr Ross finds themselves on the receiving end of youth violence, we must all feel sorry for them. Because as decent people, we are on the side of the victim. They however must not push for prosecutions. They must laugh it off, extend a hand to their tormentors and say, "funny one, guys."

What is the BBC playing at (1)?

Roger Bolton's piece on the BBC News website, no doubt linked to the radio show he presented, is a classic example of low-grade journalism and bias dressed up as research. It is excellent that the Codex Sinaiticus is being digitised and put online: the Christian Church has always been scholarly and willing to learn at its best, and it is to be welcomed.
The problems start here:
"For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible."
No there won't. Or at least, there are no new questions, as Codex Sinaiticus brought to the attention of the academic community in 1844 by Count Tischendorf, a Leipzig-based adventurer-scholar (let's not think Indiana Jones, though). A basic summary of what you need to know can be found at the website of the digitisation project here, including the unusual story of how he got it out of the monastery at Sinai, more details of which can be found in a fairly good article on Wikipedia, from what I can judge.
The simple fact is, Mr Bolton, that the scholarly community simply won't make the fuss you did. Because to us, Codex Sinaiticus is nothing new. I have a critical edition of the NT (GNT 4th ed., the type face of which I prefer over Nestle-Aland 27), and am perfectly aware of transmission issues and the differences between the texts. Whereby your thousands needs to be relativised by pointing out that the overwhelming majority are easily recognised copying errors, some of which have been corrected even in the manuscripts themselves (see intro to N-A 27 or GNT 4th ed.)
So why write the article? Very simple, I'm afraid. Bias, and a willingness to distort and misrepresent the state of research for the sake of bias. It's a classic case of a media cheap-shot at religious believers, intellectually on a par with what Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross did to Andrew Sachs (see next post).