Richard Ingrams’s Week: A debate that highlights the BBC's dereliction of duty

There was something a bit reminiscent of the Three Tenors about Monday's Channel 4 debate starring Messrs Darling, Osborne and Cable. Given the generally harmonious atmosphere, I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd all three burst into song – "I can't give you anything but cuts".

After the debate the Tories complained to Channel 4 that the audience had applauded Vince Cable too much in comparison with their man Osborne.

Next time they do something like this the audience members will perhaps be told in advance to limit their applause and give each speaker a regulation amount regardless of the remarks they may have made. Otherwise it was significant that, once again, an important political debate was being hosted by Channel 4 and not the BBC. The fact is that for all its pious talk about its dedication to public service broadcasting, the BBC no longer makes any attempt to give time to big political issues as it would have done in the past. Politics is something for early Sunday morning when many of the viewers are still asleep.

During the run-up to the Iraq war it was once again left to Channel 4 to debate the issue for and against. And when Blair gave his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry in February – an event of major significance and of great interest to the public – there was coverage on an obscure BBC digital channel, with no attempt to provide proper commentary from experts.

Nobody really gains from this judgment

The mistake people make about the law is to think that it's something hard and fast, set in stone like the Ten Commandments. The reality was best defined by the late Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, who declared: "There's no certainty in the law. It's complete will o' the wisp."

Anyone with experience of litigation will have been made aware of the truth of Denning's remarks. My own strongest impression from many court actions is of being caught up in a nightmarish Alice in Wonderland game, the rules of which are being made up as you go along.

I find it hard, therefore, to share the opinion of journalist colleagues in claiming some important "landmark" change in the libel law following the victory in the Court of Appeal this week of Dr Simon Singh, who had been sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

All that has happened is that Dr Singh was barred by Mr Justice Eady from pleading fair comment in defence of his article accusing the BCA of making bogus claims, a judgment that has now been overturned by the Court of Appeal.

One judge says one thing. Other judges disagree. What else is new? The only cause for rejoicing is that Mr Justice Eady, who has proved in many of his judgments to be no friend of the press, has once again had his ruling overturned on appeal. Not that that will make much difference to anything at all.

Just how much protection do birds need?

A few years ago, a Liverpool man, Steven Harper, was prosecuted for selling a stuffed owl on the internet auction site eBay. As the proud possessor of a stuffed owl, once a popular ornament in Victorian times, I experienced a moment of panic. Could I too be prosecuted? Or would that happen only if I tried to sell the owl?

Mr Harper, it turned out, was lucky to get away with a conditional discharge, while a spokesman for Merseyside police, keen to uphold the rights of dead stuffed owls, warned that "the legislation is in place to protect endangered species whether an animal is alive or dead".

Or even, it seems, if it never existed in the first place – if another case reported this week is anything to go by. A Northumberland auctioneer, Mr Jim Railton, was not as lucky as Mr Harper. He was prosecuted and fined £1,000 for putting a collection of 100-year-old birds' eggs (many of them broken) up for sale. In addition he must pay a "victim's surcharge" of £15, though who the victim is or was has not been made clear.

Who is behind these farcical prosecutions? At the risk of incurring a libel action like Dr Singh, I suspect the hand of the militant Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the same organisation that has helped to fill the sky over my house with menacing red kites. It may well be time for the Queen to consider whether such an organisation as the RSPB should continue to be allowed to use the prefix "royal".