I've only just caught up with Nick Robinson's blog post on his placard-stamping exploits a few days ago. It's of course decent of him to issue an apology, although it has to be said bits of it read like a 'non-apology apology', and I still wonder if it would have been forthcoming at all if it hadn't been for footage of the incident appearing online. One sentence in particular made me smile -
"However, as I explained afterwards to the protesters who disrupted my broadcast, there are many opportunities to debate whether the troops should be out of Afghanistan without the need to stick a sign on a long pole and wave it in front of a camera."
Anyone would think he was describing some kind of unspeakable act of depravity. Perhaps "pole" is a euphemism? To be fair, though, the horrors of the "disruption" didn't end with a man standing quietly in a public place holding up a piece of cardboard - you can clearly see from the picture that the ink on the placard clashes hideously with Nick's tie. How can he be expected to report and analyse an important political story in such impossible circumstances?